July 2007 - Installer-dev - lists.apple.com

shell command inside InstallationCheck script not working while run with installer
by Manish Chaturvedi 26 Jul '07

26 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thread-index: AcfPWJNoWPn+gpAiTFOihjQCHr3jow== _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Permissions weirdness
by Peter Bierman 25 Jul '07

25 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com You'll need to use a postinstall script to chgrp the file after extraction. -pmb _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… At 5:51 PM -0400 7/25/07, Kirk Gleason wrote: Now I am not entirely sure what all of those numbers are, but I have figured out (or I think I have) that the first number (100775) is the permissions for the file, and the second (0/115587243) is the UID/GID. The GID is correct. It is so high because it is actually an active directory group. So, does anyone have any idea why the gid on the installed application is showing up as something different? Is there a maximum gid that the Package Maker can deal with? Unfortunately, the CPIO file format that the installer uses for the archive is limited to 16 bits, with a maxiumum UID or GID of 65535. Usually this isn't a problem because very few installer packages need to set explicit uid/gid values that aren't standard system values. This is tracked by radar bug: <radar:3999229> installer archives (CPIO) have only 16 bits for UID and GID fields This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Permissions weirdness
by Kirk Gleason 25 Jul '07

25 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com 775 root AD\domain users package_root/Applications/Application.app (Obviously that is not exactly it, but you get the idea). What I cannot figure out is where the 47275 gid is coming from.... lsbom Archive.bom inside the pkg shows me a line that looks like this: ./Applications/Application.app 100775 0/115587243 82 40377167 -- Kirk Gleason Systems Engineer Finelight Strategic Marketing Communications 812.339.6700 -- Knowledge-Definition Warning: Because knowledge is defined, for the purpose of this e-mail, as "justified true belief"; the writer cannot prove that they "know" any of the information provided within this e-mail to be true, correct, complete, or consistent because they cannot demonstrate their internal belief states through the principle of Philosophic Privacy. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Hello all, I am relatively new the Package Maker stuff, and the package that I am currently working on is by far the most involved one that I have ever done. Essentially, I am trying to develop a package for an application and relevant ODBC settings. The ODBC part is working like a charm, but for some reason, the permissions on the Application itself are getting out of whack when I install it. I have the permissions set the way that I want them in my package root, and they look like this: When I install the package on a test machine, the app in question ends up with permissions of 775 root 47275. Now I am not entirely sure what all of those numbers are, but I have figured out (or I think I have) that the first number (100775) is the permissions for the file, and the second (0/115587243) is the UID/ GID. The GID is correct. It is so high because it is actually an active directory group. So, does anyone have any idea why the gid on the installed application is showing up as something different? Is there a maximum gid that the Package Maker can deal with? I am installing as an admin on the machine, and it is a domain account. If I run `chgrp -R 'AD\domain users' Application.app` the permissions adjust as they should, so the test machine does recognize the 'domain users' friendly name, and the gid is exactly the same for domain users on my development box and my test box. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Mike 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Macintosh/20070716) That may be true, but supporting simple Cocoa bundles does not rely on any OS-specific feature. I can write a single Cocoa app as a bundle that runs on both 10.4 and 10.3 and since installer plugins are simple bundles, there is no reason the installer in 10.3 cannot support them (no technology-specific requirement such as Spotlight, etc). As for "will in the future", when exactly might that be? I've got a product to release now and I'm going to be forced to have 2 different SKU's for it just over the installer issue because I'm going to have to build a VISE installer and pay them royalties for our 10.3 users. Either that or write my own installer from scratch and dump Apple's junk once and for all (which will delay my product another month). If I can write an installer that can run on both 10.3 and 10.4 from scratch, I imagine Apple can manage it with it's 1000+ engineers Steve is always bragging about. 23% of OS X users are still on 10.3 according to The Steve's big glossy pie-chart at WWDC. Am I supposed to just ignore a quarter of the entire customer base because Apple's can make a simple change to the installer in a 10.3.x update? Or spend an extra month writing what Apple should have just to be able to sell to that 23%? I have been a Mac developer for 17 years but I am getting tired of having to jump through hoops to get my product to work on 3 versions of the OS and doing things Apple should provide in the first place. Mike They just added stuff that were not available in 10.3. Would you prefer they did not add anything from 10.3 to 10.4? *I* would prefer they push updates to the Installer.app back to 10.3, especially such crucial ones. Apple are worse than Microsoft for this crap... far far worse... MS could have made MSI only work on 2K/XP, but no - it works on 9x as well. This email sent to lists(a)michael-amorose.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Peter Mulholland wrote: Tuesday, July 24, 2007, 12:34:57 PM, someone wrote: Apple in the past has revised older installer versions for security issues, and I imagine that they will in the future. Note that there are a LOT of interdependencies between the installer and the OS, because of the way that the OS gets installed (we boot off the new OS while installing it). So pushing the new installer features back to older OS versions is a very difficult task, and we could "never," for example, support installer features that rely on, say, Spotlight. But. Please file a bug like this, and tell all your friends to add a "me too." _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/lists%40michael-amoros… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Re[2]: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Bill Coderre 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com They just added stuff that were not available in 10.3. Would you prefer they did not add anything from 10.3 to 10.4? *I* would prefer they push updates to the Installer.app back to 10.3, especially such crucial ones. Apple are worse than Microsoft for this crap... far far worse... MS could have made MSI only work on 2K/XP, but no - it works on 9x as well. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Peter Mulholland wrote: Tuesday, July 24, 2007, 12:34:57 PM, someone wrote: Apple in the past has revised older installer versions for security issues, and I imagine that they will in the future. Note that there are a LOT of interdependencies between the installer and the OS, because of the way that the OS gets installed (we boot off the new OS while installing it). So pushing the new installer features back to older OS versions is a very difficult task, and we could "never," for example, support installer features that rely on, say, Spotlight. But. Please file a bug like this, and tell all your friends to add a "me too." This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re[2]: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Peter Mulholland 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Hello Arnaud, Tuesday, July 24, 2007, 12:34:57 PM, you wrote: > They just added stuff that were not available in 10.3. Would you > prefer they did not add anything from 10.3 to 10.4? *I* would prefer they push updates to the Installer.app back to 10.3, especially such crucial ones. Apple are worse than Microsoft for this crap... far far worse... MS could have made MSI only work on 2K/XP, but no - it works on 9x as well. -- Best regards, Peter mailto:darkmatter@blueyonder.co.uk _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Andy Kim 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Racist as well as stupid. That explains it. I was born and raised in the states, btw, not that it should matter. What part of "10.2 and later" don't you understand? Mike Mike On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Andy Kim wrote: It's a free tool, give me a break with your whining. It's Apple's way of helping you and your users to say goodbye to 10.3. -Andy On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Mike wrote: Mike _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Mike wrote: Oh jeez, not another overly arrogant Korean. What is it with you people? When will you Asians stop telling Americans who have been working on a platform for 17 years how to do our jobs? I was writing software when you were, most likely still in diapers. Let's see............ I just reread the entire Software Delivery Guide for a second time and on page 7 it says: "Software requirements: This document assumes that delivery solutions are created using Mac OS X v10.4 or later and Xcode 2.3 or later. The delivery solutions described in this document can be installed on computers running Mac OS X v10.2 and later." Regardless of whether it is a "free" utility or not is irrelevant. Xcode is free too. Next you will be telling me Apple has no responsibility to support that either? If Apple provides the tools, it is their responsibility to support them. Maybe no one should expect a crappy OS like Linux to work either just because it is "free". MXPLAY looks pretty crappy BTW. Nice flashing UI elements as I drag and resize the window. LOL. Andy Kim wrote: It's a free tool, give me a break with your whining. Installer plugins is a poorly documented feature but if you had looked a the one and only sample from Apple ("Plugins are only supported in Mac OS X Tiger (v10.4) and later.") or searched through the mailing list you would've realized this. I did. It's Apple's way of helping you and your users to say goodbye to 10.3. -Andy On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Mike wrote: So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk(a)mxplay.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/lists% 40michael-amorose.com This email sent to lists(a)michael-amorose.com Installer plugins is a poorly documented feature but if you had looked a the one and only sample from Apple ("Plugins are only supported in Mac OS X Tiger (v10.4) and later.") or searched through the mailing list you would've realized this. I did. So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk(a)mxplay.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk(a)mxplay.com This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Arnaud Nicolet 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Le 24 juil. 07 à 10:17 Matin, Mike a écrit : So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. They just added stuff that were not available in 10.3. Would you prefer they did not add anything from 10.3 to 10.4? _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Andy Kim 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com It's a free tool, give me a break with your whining. It's Apple's way of helping you and your users to say goodbye to 10.3. -Andy On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Mike wrote: Mike _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… Installer plugins is a poorly documented feature but if you had looked a the one and only sample from Apple ("Plugins are only supported in Mac OS X Tiger (v10.4) and later.") or searched through the mailing list you would've realized this. I did. So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk(a)mxplay.com This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Installer plugins on 10.3
by Mike 24 Jul '07

24 Jul '07

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Macintosh/20070716) Mike _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.… So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0