I think it is a good idea too. I have done some editing, and found no problems. But I am not a heavy user. Maybe in a separate section of the download page, and then maybe the very first? Keep the similar naming? Like cinelerra-5.1-20201031.x86_64.AppImage or using CinGG in honor of Bill: CinGG-20201031.x86_64-older_distros.AppImage CinGG-20201031.x86_64.newer_distros.AppImage or something else. How many 32 bit distro users are there? @Phyllis, if you can build from the 20201031 release code, then maybe that should be the first one on there? So people can compare the AppImage with the package-style release of the same vintage, and we have a reference in case of things not working as they used to be. Then because there will only be two versions ("older" and "newer") there could be a few more "previous" ones than the 1 previous there is now. And it should be mentioned what the differences are between old and new, and when you should use one or the other. I have not tested cmd line parameter -r for batch rendering, not sure if there are any other cmd line options I should test. MatN On Tue, 2021-02-23 at 08:23 -0700, Phyllis Smith via Cin wrote:
Good idea. I am working on BT #538 to install the latest latex2html on another computer so I have a backup. Once I am finished with that I can update the distros pages "how to" on the website. I do not think too many people have used the AppImage's yet but I believe that MatN uses it and has reported no problems.
On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 7:15 AM Andrea paz via Cin < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi, I was wondering if it's time to put appimage as the main installation method of CinGG, highlighting it in the website and the manual. The binaries remain working but not updated. What do you guys think?