Is it safe to remove the source folders to save space?
What other things can be removed safely?
PS: If it is safe to remove, you should make the installer let the user choose if he wants it to be installed or not in order to save space on small drives because the majority of the users won't need to recompile the software.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
it is. If you dont use it, you can remove the help file too and the whole "Other" folder.The only use would be if you wanted to use the ini file (for example to disable the splash screen or change the exe name).
Just dont touch anything in the "App" and "Data" folders.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Thanks for the very fast response!
Artificial intelligence stands no chance against natural stupidity!
Some launchers in development splash the image from the Source folder to save space ;).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
That's embedded inside the XxxPortable.exe launcher.
Also, you can (atm) delete App\AppInfo and App\DefaultData if you like. Just don't ruin your Data folder, or else you'll want DefaultData back...
I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.
“A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1
if you do you´ll have to reinstall all your Apps once the new Platform comes out.
As a general rule, you shouldnt touch the App folder.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
If you delete App\Appinfo the upcoming PortableApps Updater won't work and you have to do the updates manually. So better don't touch it.
Which launchers do that?
Chris is completely correct. The image is actually compressed in the launcher.
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning." - Rick Cook
Rab040ma (haven't seen him in a while) pointed out that splashing direct saves a few KB and it is done in some of the older apps (inluding mine).
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
An app should never be dependent upon the presence of an optional external object, especially Source files. [Required entries in an optional INI file aren't so kosher, either… ;-) ] In your example, one correct way to save the few KB would have been to modify the installer to optionally replace the Source directory with a tiny Source.html that describes why the folder's missing and provides a link to the app download page.
@John:
Would it be more correct to have the sample INI under the App directory? That would allow users to delete *\Source with impunity — App Compactor could even get a new Remove Source folder option for its debut to non-developers.
-hea
EDIT: added App Compactor link.
Sorry for being slightly off-topic, but here's an interesting tidbit:
Some Firefox (portable too) extensions include a gpl.txt or license.txt in the installed folder. This file clearly can't be an essential part of the operational code since it is a regular text file.
If you delete this text file, the extension will fail to load next start.
Examples from my installation:
These extensions were made by different authors. Someone, somewhere is establishing this as a "standard", so I'm sure that there's more extensions that operate in this manner.
Jim
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
Some Firefox (portable too) extensions include a gpl.txt or license.txt in the installed folder. This file clearly can't be an essential part of the operational code since it is a regular text file.
The file may not be operationally essential, but it is legally required for distribution — if it's missing, something's clearly gone awry. I bet they simply check for existence rather than verifying the contents.
-hea
Sorry to continue this, but if it is required for distribution, then they can get user OK when it is installed.
That doesn't mean that the user needs to have the file on hand continuously.
Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread... removing source folders to save space. Aren't we talking about the same thing, really? The source folder for a portableapps installation holds the license.txt.
Jim
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
the rules of this website? That it has to be distributed with the source code in every download? Or is it just customary so it is always available and up-to-date (which I wouldn't disagree with)? Would it suffice if the source was available on the website instead of the program?
I don't think I have read it on this website about those particulars.
Don't be an uberPr∅. They are stinky.
I just tried searching for a couple of posts I remembered addressing this question, but came up empty. IIRC, John has indicated a preference for including the source in Other\Source, but said that linking to the source was OK in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, I don't recall the exact circumstances.
Logically speaking, if it's just a launcher, it makes sense to include the source; if it's a real program with big hairy source, a Source.html with a link to the source on the web is probably sufficient.
Now back to those pesky Firefox and Thunderbird extensions…
Bear in mind that extensions are actually a collection of interpreted files such as JavaScript and chrome goodies. That means the executables are the source. Since the licenses typically state that any copies of the source must include an unmodified copy of the license, apparently some extension authors want to make Real Sure™ the source code doesn't float away without a license attached.
As I said before, I bet they simply check for existence rather than verifying the contents.
Of course, if you delete or modify the license file, you can't legally share the extension by copying it from your profile.
-hea
P.S. Of my 22 Firefox extensions, only two actually include the full 35K GPLv3 file and one includes the full 18K GPLv2. Nine include license files varying from 1 to 4 KB; the rest don't include a separate license file at all.
If you redistribution GPL licensed binaries, you are required by the GPL (and thus copyright law) to also redistribute the source code. You can either include the source code with the binary in the same package, or a written offer showing where to get it. We include the source for our launcher and a written offer within Other\Source on where to get the source for the app itself (our website). If you don't include the source with the binary, you need to make it available for a period of 3 years in the manner you mention. This is on a per-binary basis, so if you make available a copy of FileZilla 2.0 available today and remove it tomorrow when you update to FileZilla 2.1, you need to make the source for 2.0 available for 3 years from today and 2.1 available now and continue until 3 years after you stop distributing the binary for 2.1.
You must make the source code available yourself on your own website. You can not simply link to the source provided by an upstream developer. PortableApps.com assumes this responsibility for distributors of our software who make no alterations and distribute our original, digitally-signed PortableApps.com Installers. So, when download.com redistributes our PortableApps.com Suite, they don't need to worry about also hosting the source for the Platform, OpenOffice.org, Sumatra PDF, Sudoku, Mines-Perfect, CoolPlayer, ClamWin, Pidgin, KeePass and AbiWord from now until a period of 3 years after they stop hosting the binary.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
So, it's not just more convenient for the end-user if the source is actually packaged with the binaries — it's more convenient for everyone involved.
-hea
So what is your position on a user removing the Source folder from an installed PortableApps application that resides on their own USB device?
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com