Re: description read only?
Re: description read only?
- Subject: Re: description read only?
- From: Jon Hodgson <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jul 2010 10:40:24 +0100
Well simple packages seem to be ok from what I've seen.
For distribution packages your problem is solved with a simple
<iinstaller-version> tag.
Can I ask what bugs you've found and how you get around them?
Jon
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:00 AM, Andrew Peckover <email@hidden> wrote:
> I hear your frustration. But, personally I sort of hope that they don't fix
> all the bugs. Since I have a *lot* of installers that pretty much rely on
> workarounds for bugs. If the bugs are fixed, I'd worry that I'd need to
> re-do all my installers to be able to compile them with the new version.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Hodgson"
> <email@hidden>
> To: "Iceberg-Dev" <email@hidden>
> Cc: "installer-dev" <email@hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, July 08, 2010 2:54 PM
> Subject: Re: description read only?
>
>
> What's displayed above is out of phase with what is going to happen,
> it says "upgrade" but it's actually going to downgrade... maybe that
> results in something not working (I can only guarantee forward
> compatibility).
>
> I'm finding this all very frustrating because the whole distribution
> package thing on OS X is so close to being great, but it has what to
> me seem like big omissions (surely the distribution file should have
> pre-install and post-install functions? after all you had them on
> meta-packages), and what's the point in only being able to read the
> description in the script?
>
> And more importantly, it seems to be buggy, or there's a glaring hole
> in the documentation which means that I'm missing something on
> versions.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:25 PM, Iceberg-Dev <email@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> On Jul 8, 2010, at 10:08 PM, Jon Hodgson wrote:
>>
>>> Nothing stupid about the question.
>>>
>>> Your suggestion is one possibility, another, given that the the
>>> installer displays "upgrade" whether it's an upgrade, downgrade, or
>>> just overwriting the same version, would be to add some
>>> information..."you currently have a newer version 2.0.56 installed"
>>
>> I see. It's good to be a perfectionist but if you find a solution to
>> change
>> the description, I'm wondering if this may not introduce confusions for
>> the
>> end-user. Because the description might not be in phase with what is
>> displayed in the list above it.
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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