Re: packagemaker update problems
Re: packagemaker update problems
- Subject: Re: packagemaker update problems
- From: Peter Bierman <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:19:01 -0700
The behavior you're confused about is actually the basis of the
existence of the installer as opposed to just using tar or zip.
When the installer detects that a different (not just older) version
of the "same package" is already installed, it will remove any files
that were installed by the previous version that are no longer part
of the new version.
Lying to the installer by hacking the BOM is a very bad idea.
-pmb
At 10:40 AM -0500 9/10/07, Steve Stockman wrote:
Does your updater have the same name and bundle ID as the full installer?
I'm not sure whether this behavior is actually documented anywhere, but
we've found that when you install a new package that has the same name as an
old package already in /Library/Receipts, if the .bom file in the old
package lists any installed files that do not exist in the new package's
.bom file, the Installer will often delete such files (presumably under the
assumption that the files are obsolete).
The solution was simple: Build both the full installer and the updater, and
then replace the updater's .bom with a copy of the full installer's. And
the Installer never seems to complain about files named in the .bom that
don't exist in the archive.
----------------------------------
Steve Stockman
Software Architect
Consumer Products - Macintosh
Symantec Corporation
www.symantec.com
----------------------------------
From: Robert Carroll <email@hidden>
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 23:50:29 -0400
To: <email@hidden>
Subject: packagemaker update problems
Thanks for your reply Stephane.
One cause of the problem with the updater has been somewhat identified.
The full installer of my application bundle includes a folder inside
"Resources" with a set of sound files.
Since these files do not change with the updates, I do not include them in
the updater package.
In testing on my machines, if I don't at least leave the empty "Sounds"
folder in the Resources folder, the update
appears to delete this folder and its contents.
Leaving the directory structure in place, correctly leaves the required
sound files post update on my machine, but seems to
still remove these files on some user's machines. I am trying to verify
this.
On Sep 8, 2007, at 3:05 PM, email@hidden wrote:
The updater is set up to replace the app file in the MacOS folder of
the client's currently installed version.
It shouldn't touch any other files in the same package (ie. resource
files or the encrypted registration info) and doesn't not
replace or change anything elsewhere on the computer.
Is this a known issue? Is there a safer and more reliable way to
accomplish this kind of update?
Regarding the permissions issues:
- Which authorization are you requiring?
I'm requiring administrator privileges to run either the installer or the
updater.
The files in the package mostly show me as the owner, read-only privileges
or read-execute for
others. Is it normal to leave myself as the owner, or more common to set
this as root or something else?
The resources folder must have read-write privileges for everyone, since the
app will write encrypted registration data
to this folder on its first run. It's possible this would be better if it
was in the application support folder, but I
prefer the concealed location in the app package.
- Do you use a default location that is not '/'?
No.
- Which OS version is the update run on when it does not work?
Regarding the "does not runt at all" issue:
- Do you take into account the fact that the application may have been
moved by the customer?
- Do you use a Locator to look for the location of the application?
This is a valid concern. I don't currently check the installed file
location, which would obviously foil the update.
>
- Do you use Resource Fork for resources in your application? If so, do
you split fork when you're creating the packages?
I'm not using resource forks, however the sound files still have resource
fork data. I would like to confirm that
this data is not essential. At the moment the resource fork data is being
preserved in the installer & updater pkgs.
best wishes,
Robert Carroll
RSM Records
Toronto
http://www.rsmrecords.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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