Re: updaters
Re: updaters
- Subject: Re: updaters
- From: Greg Neagle <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 09:45:03 -0800
As a systems administrator, I expect the changes an installation
package makes to be documented in the Archive.bom (for bundle-style
receipts), or in the receipts database (for Leopard-style flat
packages). I don't expect to have to reverse engineer what a
postinstall script installed.
That's what I mean by violating the spirit.
There's nothing stopping a developer from doing this. Heck, there's
nothing stopping a developer from shipping an installer package that
has no payload at all, but whose post-install script downloads random
content off the internet and installs it at random spots in my
filesystem, and then uploads the contents of my home directory (or any
portion thereof) to the developer's server.
But that violates the spirit of installation packages.
-Greg
On Feb 15, 2009, at 11:15 PM, Dodger wrote:
2009/2/13 Greg Neagle <email@hidden>:
(you _could_ with a postflight script, but that's really violating
the spirit of install packages)
How so?
I'm using that exact sort of functionality deliberately. In my case,
I'm installing 3D assets that are derived works based on other ones,
by making the installer include only the deviationa and not the
original, thereby making it so I'm not redistributing the original
content.
--
Dodger
_______________________________________________
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