Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread Charles Srstka
On Sep 10, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Sherm Pendley wrote: Yeah, if only there were an app that would let users look inside installer packages... It would ease their troubled minds, so perhaps it could be called "Peaceful" or something like that... :-) Yup, and a big reason I wrote it was to get ar

Re: [moderator] Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread Scott Anguish
whether it is an issue of trust or not isn't really relevant to this list. As I said, this isn't to be debated here. I'll see about the documentation issue, but if we're not talking about how to construct an DMG, or installer, or the docs about it, it is _off topic_. On 10-Sep-08, at 12

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread Sherm Pendley
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Charles Srstka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Anyway, if Mac software starts heading back down the road to everything > having an installer, the appeal of the Mac platform vs. Windows will be > severely diminished in my eyes. I agree with you to a point, but... "s

Re: [moderator] Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread David
In my mind, the installer issue is an issue of trust. Do you trust the "installer" of an application to install the application in the best interest of the user. Do you trust that the installer won't install things you don't want. Do you trust that the installer provides a way to uninstall the app

[moderator] Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread Scott Anguish
probably best not to debate this particular aspect of things... As I said, I'll about getting this clarified in the docs, and a consistent message in it. On 10-Sep-08, at 3:40 AM, Charles Srstka wrote: On Sep 9, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: The poster didn't say why he assumes

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-10 Thread Charles Srstka
On Sep 9, 2008, at 4:26 PM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: The poster didn't say why he assumes the Software Delivery Guide to be more authoritative. The only evidence I'm aware of is that the Software Delivery Guide was last updated over two years ago, in July 2006, before Leopard was released. The

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Jon Buys
> I must agree with this paragraph whole-heartedly - my single favorite thing > about OS X is the way so many applications can be installed by dragging a > simple icon somewhere, and can be uninstalled by dragging that same icon to > the Trash. No need to worry about an installer dumping crap where

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Scott Anguish
It is definitely a mixed message... It needs to be at the very least consistent. I've raised it with someone and will attempt to pursue it. As bbum said, the issues with Installer packages are the need for authentication, and the inability to specify where it should be installed if it is a

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Michael Ash
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Jerry Krinock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2008 Sep, 09, at 11:18, Charles Srstka wrote: > >> On Sep 9, 2008, at 5:53 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: >> >>> Apple currently recommends that ALL applications be delivered in the form >>> of >>> an installer. See the "Pac

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Bill Cheeseman
on 2008-09-09 4:16 PM, David Melgar at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote (quoting an earlier poster, I think): >> Here's what Apple says in the Software Delivery Guide (which I'd >> assume to be more authoritative about which option you should use >> than the PackageMaker manual),... The poster didn't say

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Bill Bumgarner
On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Jerry Krinock wrote: Charles, it may appear to have a more authoritative perspective, but it was last revised a year earlier, in July 2006. Therefore, I put my faith the document that Bill Cheeseman referred to instead. Manual Installs are Out. Installers are I

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Jerry Krinock
On 2008 Sep, 09, at 11:18, Charles Srstka wrote: On Sep 9, 2008, at 5:53 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: Apple currently recommends that ALL applications be delivered in the form of an installer. See the "PackageMaker User Guide," last revised in July 2007: Here's what Apple says in the Softwa

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread David Melgar
I agree. Being able to install applications in unprivelaged locations is one of the best qualities of mac os x. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 9, 2008, at 2:18 PM, Charles Srstka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sep 9, 2008, at 5:53 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: on 2008-09-08 11:31 PM, Chris Markl

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Charles Srstka
On Sep 9, 2008, at 5:53 AM, Bill Cheeseman wrote: on 2008-09-08 11:31 PM, Chris Markle at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd prefer to ship this as a DMG... But if I understand DMG-based delivery correctly, the idea is that Mac users are used to this and "know" to copy the application bundle to the

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Thomas Engelmeier
Am 09.09.2008 um 12:53 schrieb Bill Cheeseman: on 2008-09-08 11:31 PM, Chris Markle at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd prefer to ship this as a DMG... But if I understand DMG-based delivery correctly, the idea is that Mac users are used to this and "know" to copy the application bundle to the Ap

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-09 Thread Bill Cheeseman
on 2008-09-08 11:31 PM, Chris Markle at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd prefer to ship this as a DMG... But if I understand DMG-based > delivery correctly, the idea is that Mac users are used to this and > "know" to copy the application bundle to the Applications folder. Apple currently recommends

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-08 Thread Kyle Sluder
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 1:34 AM, Peter N Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1 Put the PDFs in the Resources folder in the app, and add Help menu entries > to display them. Pro Tools does this. It's incredibly frustrating to have to launch the app just to get at the documentation. I happen to know

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-08 Thread Peter N Lewis
At 20:31 -0700 8/9/08, Chris Markle wrote: In the application folder I am referring to is the application bundle, some PDFs (doc) and a Plugins folder with one plugin bundle in it. I think the application expects the plugins to be in this specific place i.e., the Plugins folder in the application

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-08 Thread Seth Willits
On Sep 8, 2008, at 8:31 PM, Chris Markle wrote: I'd prefer to ship this as a DMG... But if I understand DMG-based delivery correctly, the idea is that Mac users are used to this and "know" to copy the application bundle to the Applications folder. But I need the user to copy the application fold

Re: While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-08 Thread David
I'm certainly no expert but... Application bundles are just directories which some special characteristics that makes Finder hide the fact that its a directory to make it look like an application. Finder just looks at any directory that ends in .app and thinks its an application. It then looks insi

While we're on the subject of DMG's for software distribution...

2008-09-08 Thread Chris Markle
Hi Folks, (Not super saavy about Mac OS X here so bear with me please...) On the subject of DMG's... I inherited a software product that currently ships using some moldy-oldy version of the Wise installer. I think basically all it does is put the application _folder_ into the Applications folder.