Re: Sub-packages for metapackage and "No payload could be found" warning
Re: Sub-packages for metapackage and "No payload could be found" warning
- Subject: Re: Sub-packages for metapackage and "No payload could be found" warning
- From: Xochitl Lunde <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:17:55 -0600
<installer-dev-bounces+xochitl_lunde=email@hidden>
wrote on 03/11/2010 10:23:51 AM:
> I am trying to create a metapackage with PackageMaker 3.0.4/179. I
have
> dragged and dropped several packages into "Contents" area,
and each one has
> its own choice associated (so that I can set up Requirements). I need
a
> metapackage because it's the friendliest option for both end user
(i.e.
> personal computers) and managed computer (i.e. organizational computers)
> installs.
>
> The first sub-package imported is one I've built, and it works fine.
It
> shows an actual package icon in the Contents list, and PackageMaker
> continuously prompts me to use its install resource for the installation.
>
> The second and third sub-packages are individual packages provided
by a
> third party, so I have no real control over them. They are each for
the same
> non-Universal application -- so they are individual installers for
Intel and
> PowerPC editions of the same application version. (The packages are
both
> named the same.) When these are imported into PackageMaker, they show
up as
> folders and do not nag me about using the installer resources. No
> information -- such as title, version, etc. -- is imported from the
> packages.
>
> When building, PackageMaker provides the same warning about the second
and
> third sub-packages:
>
> "No payload could be found. The package will not be built."
>
> Building the metapackage results in a bundle that contains a "Packages"
> subdirectory with only the first package (the one I built).
>
> The .pmdoc file is set up for a minimum target of Mac OS X 10.5 and
the
> metapackage is listed as a distribution. The second and third packages'
> Requirements are set to try to enable their Choice only when the correct
> architecture is encountered.
>
> Without seeing or knowing more about the second and third package,
can
> anyone provide any guidance as to why they act so differently and
don't
> build into the metapackage?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Jeremy
Have you tried building your new package using Iceberg
instead? Maybe you will get some better error messages out of it,
even if you discover you can't exactly do what you want. I really struggled
with Package Maker in the last couple of months, and I spent a lot of time
figuring out that it wasn't saving certain settings between runs.
I have noticed that when I use package maker, it seems
to make a binary file that I can't click "Show Contents" on like
I can with most packages. Finder seems to treat most of the third
party packages that I have as directories, whereas the items made by packagemaker
are being treated like single files. I wonder if PackageMaker is
then treating your other packages as folders and not as packages at all?
I am not very impressed with Package Maker, and I wouldn't be surprised
if someone told me it doesn't work great with other packages that were
not created using Package Maker.
There are special rules about what kinds of packages
can go in other packages also. I'm not very familiar with them, but
I remember seeing that somewhere. It might be in the Mac OS X Software
Delivery Guide.
_______________________________________________
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