New version of DRM removal tools ("DeDRM")

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

The metaphor of "desktop", "folder" and such, underlying most windows-like desktop operating environments. It is the standard term, IIRC.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...sktop-metaphor

So extending the common folder metaphor to "zip compressed folders" seems appropriate to me considering how they are most commonly used.
ApK

It's a folder icon for the underlying directory.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

The metaphor of "desktop", "folder" and such, underlying most windows-like desktop operating environments. It is the standard term, IIRC.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics...sktop-metaphor

Gotcha. I'd never heard it referred to that in way before.

Originally Posted by ApK

So extending the common folder metaphor to "zip compressed folders" seems appropriate to me considering how they are most commonly used.
ApK

I disagree. It may be how most people see/use it, but that has little to do with whether or not it was appropriate for Microsoft to encourage the use case in the first place. It may have become appropriate (though I'd suggest the word "commonplace" over appropriate). It's just my opinion that it shouldn't have. The icons they chose are just as blameworthy for conflating the two non-alike things.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The newer release incorporates the existing code. There is no code not in the current 10.0.9.

Yes. That is true for the newer alpha version of 10.0.9.

I objected to your statement that it was true for the beta version. The beta version is from last August, not December. As a stickler for exact terminology you should appreciate the difference.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The beta was released December 21, 2023.

Untrue.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I disagree. It may be how most people see/use it, but that has little to do with whether or not it was appropriate for Microsoft to encourage the use case in the first place. It may have become appropriate (though I'd suggest the word "commonplace" over appropriate). It's just my opinion that it shouldn't have. The icons they chose are just as blameworthy for conflating the two non-alike things.

Yes. Commonplace =/= Appropriate.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Sorry, but incorrect. The beta was released December 21, 2023. The 3 month old code was put out in December 2023 before the beta was made available. Some of the code was commuted on the 21st of December and some before.

You've got to get your terminology straight, Jon. The 10.0.9 beta release was released on 2023-Aug-01. The latest 10.0.9 alpha version from the auto-releases page generated from the last code changes on the repo was 2023-Dec-21.

Alternately, you can just download the code from the master branch and (assuming you have Python installed) run make_release.py to generate your own package.

[chrisridd]

Originally Posted by theducks

The reason for a ZIP is plugins are packages (containers) with many pieces.
Is there a STANDARD for 'pkg' (or any other) that works on all OS?

You missed my point. So just to be clear I'm suggesting this:

Keep the plugins as zips BUT give them a different file extension, say .calibreplugin.

Keeping the zip format means Calibre can still use the same unzip code as it does currently for accessing the plugin.

It also means Calibre can only allow a user to add files with the .calibreplugin extension to be added as plugins.

Finally it means that a user is really unlikely to try unzipping the plugin by double-clicking it.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I disagree. It may be how most people see/use it, but that has little to do with whether or not it was appropriate for Microsoft to encourage the use case in the first place.

Originally Posted by Quoth

Yes. Commonplace =/= Appropriate.

This reminds me a bit of the "descriptive/prescriptive" argument about the role of dictionaries.

I'm OK agreeing to disagree on the appropriateness of the OS treating zips as folders. I really don't have a dog in the fight, other than to note that I remember that when Windows started treating zips like folders, questions from users about how to get files out of zip archives dropped off considerably, and the majority of even my own interaction with zips is served well by the way Windows handles them. For the other ~20% of my use cases, I have 7zip.

ApK

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm OK agreeing to disagree on the appropriateness of treating zips as folders. I really don't have a dog in the fight

Same. I've said my piece.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by chrisridd

You missed my point. So just to be clear I'm suggesting this:

Keep the plugins as zips BUT give them a different file extension, say .calibreplugin.

Keeping the zip format means Calibre can still use the same unzip code as it does currently for accessing the plugin.

It also means Calibre can only allow a user to add files with the .calibreplugin extension to be added as plugins.

Finally it means that a user is really unlikely to try unzipping the plugin by double-clicking it.

Sound reasonable to me.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by chrisridd

Keep the plugins as zips BUT give them a different file extension, say .calibreplugin.

Keeping the zip format means Calibre can still use the same unzip code as it does currently for accessing the plugin.

That's what epubs do / are.

The .calibreplugin is a bit long and .cpi is used up already. Maybe .cpin as an ending?

[JSWolf]

Actually, the released 10.0.9 is RC1, not a beta. The alpha is a newer version based on newer code. The alpha should be RC2 or 10.1.0.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, the released 10.0.9 is RC1, not a beta.

The description of that release states, “this is a beta / RC release before v10.1.0 is released.” So it is both.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The alpha should be RC2 or 10.1.0.

From the statement above clearly NoDRM in August meant for version 10.1.0 to be a “real” release, not a beta or release candidate.

I don’t know why, but the plan changed and as things are set up now any future changes will automatically cause a new 10.0.9 alpha release to be generated. There is no indication that NoDRM plans to ever make any further actual releases at this point.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, the released 10.0.9 is RC1, not a beta. The alpha is a newer version based on newer code. The alpha should be RC2 or 10.1.0.

Originally Posted by jhowell

The description of that release states, “this is a beta / RC release before v10.1.0 is released.” So it is both.

Do you actually think that a published statement by the repository owner is more authoritative than a proclamation by the all seeing all knowing JSWolf?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Do you actually think that a published statement by the repository owner is more authoritative than a proclamation by the all seeing all knowing JSWolf?

I should feel shame at allowing NoDRM to mislead me in that way.

[jmurphy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Some of the code was commuted on the 21st of December and some before.

"Commuted", huh?
For somebody who likes to jump down other people's throats for minor typos, you sure do live in a glass house filled with black pots'n'kettles.

jmurphy