Leaderboard

I understand that you do not wish to open-source your product, but I am reluctant to use it because of the fact it is closed-source, the company is based in India (yes, this matters) and there is no information about the development team. Have you considered having an independent 3rd-party audit your source-code on a regular basis as a way to gain credibility without open-sourcing your product? Thanks, Gili

Indeed, a relative path to the wallet file is a must. Otherwise you need to setup the settings for each pc each time. I think it is better to have a portable installation, with one wallet file, that resides relatively to the exe directory that you can open the same configuration on each computer instead of needing to setup the configuration for each station.

I disagree to some extent. Firstly, "Majority of people use Debian based" is the sort of comment that produces flame wars. I urge you to avoid making such wild statements unless you are prepared to write a very long essay with reliable statistical support. Note: "reliable". Secondly, having just followed your comments, and used the "EnpassInstaller" on a new Fedora 24 installation, it just does not work. Thirdly, all the effort to support an RPM package is not intrinsically different from supporting a debian package. I have done and continue to do this. The setup requires a bit of work, but once the automation is working, you should not see any major additional workload. If you do, then the problem is not the RPM package per se. Packaging is packaging. What you have in fact achieved by introducing the "EnpassInstaller" as a generic solution for "all other distros", is that you have created a focus point for all other problems. You have not fixed them, and you have made supporting them very difficult because they are not contained in discrete areas. They are all in one big bag of "stuff". I suggest your management reevaluates the problem and the chosen solutions, because something is very wrong.