Re: Expected behavior for upgrades with changed file locations
Re: Expected behavior for upgrades with changed file locations
- Subject: Re: Expected behavior for upgrades with changed file locations
- From: Greg Neagle <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:22:55 -0800
Generally speaking, files that exist in the payload of version n of a package that do not exist in the payload of version m (where m > n) of the package (where both packages share the same package id) are _removed_ when version m of the package is installed. That's the intended behavior.
Your mention of "local domain" has me a bit confused though. If by this phrase you are referring to the /Library/LaunchAgents and /Library/LaunchDaemons directories, then what I wrote above still stands. Things may (will) get more complicated if/when the installer writes to a user's home directory.
Pre- and post- scripts should be avoided except when absolutely necessary, if for no other reason than they are frequently written with assumptions that are incorrect, especially when the package is installed by a method other than a user double-clicking it to run it interactively with Installer.app. Bad assumptions on the part of the script writer are the #1 reason packages fail to install correctly in an InstaDMG workflow, via the command line, when at the loginwindow with no GUI user, and when applied to a non-boot volume.
-Greg
On Jan 25, 2011, at 10:51 AM, Jeremy Reichman wrote:
> What is the expected behavior for upgrades of existing packages --
> specifically packages in 10.4 format -- that have changed file layouts
> since the last version was installed? If there is a difference in behavior
> for packages in 10.4 vs. 10.5 format, I'd be interested in knowing about
> that.
>
> For example, let's say package version 2.1 installed a LaunchAgent in the
> local domain, but version 2.5 no longer needs that and does _not_ come
> with it in its package payload. Version 2.5 happens to install a local
> domain LaunchDaemon instead. Both packages have the same ID. There are no
> installer components or user choices available. Without any scripts, would
> the upgrade of version 2.5 over 2.1 be expected to remove the
> no-longer-in-payload LaunchAgent or not?
>
> I have seen plenty of examples of installers removing (as well as adding,
> obviously) files during upgrades, but I haven't investigated whether those
> removals were driven by scripts or the package payload. I tend to see a
> lot of talk about reliance on scripts for upgrades and I want to know
> whether that is really necessary or not.
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Jeremy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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