Re: Metapackage that can install depending on architecture
Re: Metapackage that can install depending on architecture
- Subject: Re: Metapackage that can install depending on architecture
- From: Roy Marquez <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:45:16 -0400
I wanted to take the time and thank Andy and Stephan as well as
everyone that has provided input in this discussion. In our case, we
have had issues (particularly with Tiger) where the Intel version of
GroupWise gave problems on our PPC systems. Novell and Adobe have that
weird way of distributing these apps. Packaging allows me to get
around this problem and it has been working fine. But I must chime in
and I say that I really dislike that horrible Adobe Installer. It has
been so problematic for us.
On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:02 PM, email@hidden
wrote:
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:01:02 -0700
From: Nigel Kersten <email@hidden>
Subject: Re: Metapackage that can install depending on architecture
To: Ted Brown <email@hidden>
Cc: email@hidden
Message-ID: <email@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Ted Brown wrote:
Some people re-package other companies installers so that they can
easily deploy them. Making a universal binary isn't an option. One
would think Adobe would be able to figure out how to make a
universal binary. But there are still separate installers for the
Flash Player (even though one is called "UB".)
It is odd how Adobe are doing this, but we've tested the UB version on
PPC quite a lot, and have had no problems with it.
This also gets around the horrible Adobe installer that asks for
elevated privileges and then decides not to use them when it scans /
Applications for app bundles that it thinks need updating.
_______________________________________________
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