feat(cli/mobile/init): skip installing already installed targets, closes #7044

[amrbashir]

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bugfix
• Feature
• Docs
• New Binding issue #___
• Code style update
• Refactor
• Build-related changes
• Other, please describe:

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes, and the changes were approved in issue #___
• No

Checklist

• When resolving issues, they are referenced in the PR's title (e.g fix: remove a typo, closes #___, #___)
• A change file is added if any packages will require a version bump due to this PR per the instructions in the readme.
• I have added a convincing reason for adding this feature, if necessary

Other information

[lucasfernog]

@amrbashir I think it's easier if we detect installed targets instead. Let me know if you have something against it.

[amrbashir]

It is a good addition but I still think we should provide the flag anyways. Some users may want to install only install 1 or 2 targets and the flag would allow them to do so.

[lucasfernog]

The flag sounds a little feature creep to me, I would avoid unless it's really necessary.

This check is already addressing a super particular use case :D usually you'll just want everything installed for you to just run android build and expect it to work flawlessly.

[amrbashir]

Ideally, tauri dev, tauri build, tauri android dev, tauri android build...etc would check and install the need requirements if possible but would, at the same time, provide a flag to skip this part, otherwise unusual environments like Nix will fail.

[lucasfernog]

Yeah but if there's a good way to detect instead of providing a skip flag.. 😉

[amrbashir]

Detection always has the possibility of missing 0.01% of users and these are the users that open github issues that will ask for a flag. I like detecting and auto fixes but at the same time I also like being in control and as tauri-cli is considered a build tool, everything it does should be configurable IMO. And I don't really consider it a feature creep since the implementation is actually simple and doesn't affect anything else.

[lucasfernog]

I tend do go with the wait and see approach in these cases.. like only adding that check when it's requested and there's no better way to do so. But we can open another PR to continue the discussion.