Relocatable packaging, other drives and authentication
Relocatable packaging, other drives and authentication
- Subject: Relocatable packaging, other drives and authentication
- From: "Nathan Herring" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 18:17:09 -0800
- Thread-topic: Relocatable packaging, other drives and authentication
I've been playing around with the InstallerDist2.dmg files to see what
can be done with .dist files.
One of the things we've been playing around in our designs is the
following:
* Default installation "domain" is the local domain, s.t. the main
applications go into /Applications and the fonts go into
/Library/Fonts[/Microsoft]
* Alternate installation "domain" of the user domain, s.t. the main
applications go into ~/Applications and the fonts go into
~/Library/Fonts[/Microsoft] - this is specifically to target users who
have a copy of Office they want to run on a lab machine where they don't
have admin authority.
* Alternate installation "domain" of the network domain, s.t. the main
applications go into /Network/Applications and the fonts go into
/Network/Library/Fonts[/Microsoft].
* Custom location for the applications, perhaps also the fonts; probably
still within the idea of the domain, just so that the permissions can be
set accordingly.
One limitation of the .dist appears to be that you cannot set your
install point to be one volume, but have a choice with a different
custom location point to a different volume. I can imagine that a user
with sufficiently small OS drive space may decide to install the fonts
into /Library/Fonts, but have the main application on an alternative
partition, e.g. /Volumes/Data. Is this the case, or am I missing
something?
Another apparent limitation of the package system (though I haven't
tried it to make sure), is that in order to support the application's
default installation of into /Applications, I'd need to make the
permissions be root:admin 1775. However, if I'm in the "user" case,
where the user isn't an admin and doesn't plan on installing the
application for all users, I'd not be able to make the permissions be
root:admin even if I wanted to (which I don't, I'd rather it just be the
user's uid and gid). Furthermore, it seems like it's just a static
setting that a package requires admin authentication or not. Is this the
case, or am I missing something?
Thanks in advance,
Nathan
----
Nathan Herring
MacBU SDE/Development
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Installer-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden