Automatic Script Updater

[Jakob Kummerow]

> I agree with this.

Good :-)

> I never doubt the demand for the auto script updater or at least a version
> checker. But I would really prefer a simple way to do it instead of adding
> new dependencies and tons of new code.
>  What I was thinking about is an update of GNS, making it
> supports signatures and versioning.

Which would mean adding new dependencies and tons of new code to it ;-)
Because you'd still need signing (I have no idea whether GHNS
currently supports that, I guess not).

"tons" == around 250 lines of code currently. Is that much?

> And using GNS doesn't mean we have to
> use kde-apps.org. We can have our own centralized script release platform by
> using GNS.
> I would prefer adding the patch(the updater) to GNS instead of applying
> directly into Amarok. We can then auto update our built-in script by our own
> server, and auto update 3rd party scripts by kde-apps.org or whatever.

Go ahead. I sure don't mind seeing my code put to good use, so that
other apps besides Amarok can benefit from it.
On the other hand, Amarok scripts are a pretty specific use case:
There are cases when updates for them are definitely useful; since
they're executable, they need signing; and they can be distributed
as-is without any compiling or something like that being necessary.
Off the top of my head, I can't think of an other case with this
situation (even plasmoids usually require compiling), so maybe it's
not really worth it to port this functionality out of Amarok into some
general toolkit (such as kdelibs).

Also, as I reasoned before, I don't think auto-updating 3rd-party
scripts is generally such a good idea.

> What I concern is not where we put the upgrades. But the way we put it.
> Making new changes will more or less upset the script developers.

I don't get the point here. I really don't see how the existence or
usage of an updating mechanism could upset any script developer.

Regards
Jakob