changed the new install method for baiduinput

[pan-long]

changed the new install method for baiduinput

[vitorgalvao]

If a manual install is now needed, you don’t need to point to the executable inside the app bundle. The app bundle itself should suffice.

[pan-long]

But the pkg file is no longer avaliable in the installer, and it throws errors when I install it.

[vitorgalvao]

Yes, I understand. What I mean is that instead of manual_installer '安装百度输入法.app/Contents/MacOS/安装百度输入法', it should just be manual_installer '安装百度输入法.app'.

[pan-long]

Ok, I see. I haves modified the location back to the app bundle. Thank you!

[vitorgalvao]

Thank you. Could you please squash your commits?

[pan-long]

Ok, squashed :)

[vitorgalvao]

Let me just check something first. @rolandwalker can we strike caskroom_only true from this one?

[rolandwalker]

@vitorgalvao I believe we can, because (for instance) backblaze.rb does not use it.

Please do remove it from this Cask, for now at least. I've removed some undocumented hackery from the caskroom_only implementation, and am now attempting to remove caskroom_only itself from all Casks, to make sure there is no longer a technical need for it.

But on the larger question, I'm still unsure if caskroom_only is a useful bit of annotation, or a useless bit of clutter. Opinions welcome. Maybe the annotation is a good thing for clarifying Casks like node-webkit.rb.

Homebrew has a keg_only stanza, which is a bit more sophisticated because it takes an argument explaining why. It also generates a useful message at install-time.

If we do keep caskroom_only, we should at least enforce that it conflicts with other ordinary artifacts.

[vitorgalvao]

My stance is that yes, caskroom_only should be kept, and that it should output a helpful message when installing a cask with it. It should also only be used in cased like the aforementioned node-webkit, i.e. cases where there is no stanza to act on the download anyway (when there are no app, pkg, manual_installer, or similar).

[rolandwalker]

That's agreeable, though we would have to hoist manual_installer out of the opaque caveats block.

@pan-long thanks for the contribution! And sorry for highjacking the thread.

[pan-long]

@rolandwalker it's ok and I like this kind of discussion as I can learn from others also. Thank you!

[vitorgalvao]

we would have to hoist manual_installer out of the opaque caveats block.

That actually sounds good, to me.

@pan-long Could you please remove the caskroom_only true stanza?

[pan-long]

@vitorgalvao ok, sure.

[pan-long]

@vitorgalvao Sorry, I have mistakenly deleted the original branch. So I have created a new pull request for it. #6273

[vitorgalvao]

I’ve merged the other one, so I’ll close this one. Thank you for the contribution, @pan-long.