November 2010 - Installer-dev

Re: Problem with installing to /private/tmp
by Iceberg-Dev 06 Nov '10

06 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:mime-version:in-reply-to :references:content-type:message-id:content-transfer-encoding:from :subject:date:to:x-mailer; bh=+Uw3uGg9P8NRkkeomSmS/xgzc1Btw8MMWQjmA1f37k4=; b=h3k0kowhYVtSFTUt73hLlV6maeMSup25yeb0qhYe88PtZI/fUJjxG+1fhkhtGnANkV SesezzSByWTnMu9cyoN3T4Zj3LMQPDodK1VePtmDup6svLvCBeEQs3uOLeo3A1DlDhu2 Iod1RN04q8GOC62B3d1iNNLPy6fd6zUDI2Ahw= Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:content-type:message-id :content-transfer-encoding:from:subject:date:to:x-mailer; b=S49X2uX4beahGKV5veX3MNCBinLpm6I3mrgDWLqVnYScf7EKr8amFYSQr9Pr9cZS5F 43PrqKg8tMxdiH41CWsBCrX4K6No3saeKOhQynugGtgEYqK7eeGSDFTrgPpVXl2sA0+p 7dKbaSyoEU9gQLILwrsL41DhCe1FWQ6cZQhLE= On Nov 5, 2010, at 5:06 PM, Glover,David wrote: Hi, I’ve just the same thing during testing. Is this to be expected / a bug ? Are you installing to /tmp or /private/tmp? _______________________________________________ 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.… >From what I can tell, files installed to /private/tmp don’t show up on Tiger, but they do on Leopard and Snow Leopard. Just asking because, sometimes, /tmp is not just a symbolic link anymore. This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Unable to enforce version checks in metapackage
by Monte Benaresh 05 Nov '10

05 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Hi Dave, Are you saying that we can add a .dist script as an incremental modification to an .mpkg, or is this the same as making a full-on distribution package? We didn't have time to switch to new tools (especially since we need to integrate them into our automated system) so we didn't consider a distribution package for this release. We have actually finished the coding for this release, and we decided to just let everything install regardless of version, and consider it Apple's bug. But perhaps it is time for us to move to distribution packages. Many thanks, Monte On Nov 4, 2010, at 8:58 AM, Glover,David wrote: > Hi, have you tried manually creating a .dist script in your .mpkg bundle? You could set a 'choice' for each of your packages, and have it call a javascript function to determine if a newer version of the package is present or not, and enable, disable, select, deselect the choice accordingly... > > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Refere… > > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Refere… > > Regards, > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: installer-dev-bounces+david.glover=prometheanworld.com(a)lists.apple.com [mailto:installer-dev-bounces+david.glover=prometheanworld.com@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Monte Benaresh > Sent: 29 October 2010 02:02 > To: Installer-Dev mailing-list > Subject: Unable to enforce version checks in metapackage > > > Hi All, > > Some of you may have seen that I am interested in creating a metapackage that only installs its components when they are newer than what is already installed. Thanks to Stéphane for his replies to my last post. > > Originally, I tried twiddling all the available version numbers in Iceberg. I found that the only instance of the version number that is checked for simple packages is "Short Version" under "Display Information." However, as other developers have seen, this mechanism is absent when installing a metapackage, and all components are installed regardless of whether they are older or newer. > > Today I thought of using the InstallaitonCheck script to enforce version checking. First I simply modified a working script to 'exit 113' and defined a string for it. This all works fine in the simple package, but when placed into a metapackage I get the following behavior: > > 1. Log error: > Oct 28 17:44:22 Monte-Intel-Mac Installer[2793]: Package Authoring Error: Infinite loop between <choice> attributes and mixed state aborted. > > 2. No alert box. > > 3. The component generating the failure is grayed-out. Hovering over its entry in the "customize" list shows tip text with my error message string. > > I did more experimenting, and #1 happens whenever InstallaitonCheck returns a non-0 return code. > > Are metapackage installs really so badly broken, or are there some other rules I must abide by when dropping components into a metapackage? > > My goal is simply to combine multiple installs for the convenience of the user while preventing back-rev components from getting installed. > > Thank you, > > Monte Benaresh > PACE Anti-Piracy > > _______________________________________________ > 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/david.glover%40prometh… > > This email sent to david.glover(a)prometheanworld.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.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

RE: Problem with installing to /private/tmp
by Glover,David 05 Nov '10

05 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thread-index: Acr8IJUT662Un8HiROmExZ2awf7KjiA4lsog Thread-topic: Problem with installing to /private/tmp _______________________________________________ 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: Unable to enforce version checks in metapackage
by Glover,David 04 Nov '10

04 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thread-index: Act3BPXEfzqwMuYfTIChg69bYrW8jQFM0WUQ Thread-topic: Unable to enforce version checks in metapackage Hi, have you tried manually creating a .dist script in your .mpkg bundle? You could set a 'choice' for each of your packages, and have it call a javascript function to determine if a newer version of the package is present or not, and enable, disable, select, deselect the choice accordingly... http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Refere… http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/DeveloperTools/Refere… Regards, Dave -----Original Message----- From: installer-dev-bounces+david.glover=prometheanworld.com(a)lists.apple.com [mailto:installer-dev-bounces+david.glover=prometheanworld.com@lists.apple.com] On Behalf Of Monte Benaresh Sent: 29 October 2010 02:02 To: Installer-Dev mailing-list Subject: Unable to enforce version checks in metapackage Hi All, Some of you may have seen that I am interested in creating a metapackage that only installs its components when they are newer than what is already installed. Thanks to Stéphane for his replies to my last post. Originally, I tried twiddling all the available version numbers in Iceberg. I found that the only instance of the version number that is checked for simple packages is "Short Version" under "Display Information." However, as other developers have seen, this mechanism is absent when installing a metapackage, and all components are installed regardless of whether they are older or newer. Today I thought of using the InstallaitonCheck script to enforce version checking. First I simply modified a working script to 'exit 113' and defined a string for it. This all works fine in the simple package, but when placed into a metapackage I get the following behavior: 1. Log error: Oct 28 17:44:22 Monte-Intel-Mac Installer[2793]: Package Authoring Error: Infinite loop between <choice> attributes and mixed state aborted. 2. No alert box. 3. The component generating the failure is grayed-out. Hovering over its entry in the "customize" list shows tip text with my error message string. I did more experimenting, and #1 happens whenever InstallaitonCheck returns a non-0 return code. Are metapackage installs really so badly broken, or are there some other rules I must abide by when dropping components into a metapackage? My goal is simply to combine multiple installs for the convenience of the user while preventing back-rev components from getting installed. Thank you, Monte Benaresh PACE Anti-Piracy _______________________________________________ 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/david.glover%40prometh… This email sent to david.glover(a)prometheanworld.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.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9
by Chris Winter 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thanks for the QuickLook plugin hookup - that's going to save me loads of time! On 4/11/2010, at 7:12 AM, Bill Coderre wrote: > There were a lot of small reasons to go flat. One reason is that a single-fork single-file installer package is that it's much easier to ship and store on non-Mac OS file systems without damage. Another is that it makes applying a digital signature simpler. There were others I'm not recalling at this moment. > > You can look inside packages by doing > pkgutil --expand MyPackage.pkg MyPackage.pkgsrc > > Pacifist also is pretty happy to show the insides of a flat package. > > There is also a QuickLook plugin that someone wrote: http://www.quicklookplugins.com/2008/03/02/suspicious-package-updated-to-v1… > > > > > On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) wrote: >> Yes, thanks. I double-checked the min install OS, and it was 10.5 for >> the meta/main package. I'd only set it to 10.3 for the sub-packages. >> Thanks! >> >> I wonder why apple changed to a flat package. It use to be helpful >> sometimes to look in a package bundle when the install wasn't going >> well. >> >> Cheers >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Iceberg-Dev [mailto:dev.iceberg@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:40 AM >>> To: Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) >>> Cc: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com >>> Subject: Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9 >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've created a .pkg with PM 3 on 10.5. I set the pkg's minimum OS >>>> version as 10.3. It works fine on 10.5 and 10.6, but when I run on >>>> 10.3.9 (PMac G4), I get the error "the bill of materials for this >>>> package was not found". >>> >>> Is the minimum OS version a requirement or the target OS? >>> >>>> The pkg contains two other packages. PM used to make a metapackage, >>>> but >>>> when I loaded the PM project into PM 3, it now builds only as a .pkg, >>>> not .mpkg. Is this part of the problem? >>>> >>>> Also, the final output pkg is a file, not a bundle, which is also >>>> new to >>>> me. The sub packages I built with PM 3 are .pkg files too, but >>>> bundles. >>>> Is there something I set in one project but not the other that I >>>> haven't >>>> found? >>> >>> If you get a file instead of a bundle, this could mean that the >>> target OS has changed and is now 10.5 and you are building a flat >>> package/distribution instead of a bundle package/metapackage. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/bc%40apple.com >> >> This email sent to bc(a)apple.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/winter%40wetafx.co.nz > > This email sent to winter(a)wetafx.co.nz _______________________________________________ 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: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9
by Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Thread-index: Act7gq938SdvspRoREmfNyi9jfE+tgAEaOkg I see, thanks for the insight. And I'll check out the ways to look into a flat pkg, thanks. >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Coderre [mailto:bc@apple.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 2:13 PM >To: Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) >Cc: 'Iceberg-Dev'; installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com >Subject: Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9 > >There were a lot of small reasons to go flat. One reason is >that a single-fork single-file installer package is that it's >much easier to ship and store on non-Mac OS file systems >without damage. Another is that it makes applying a digital >signature simpler. There were others I'm not recalling at this moment. > >You can look inside packages by doing >pkgutil --expand MyPackage.pkg MyPackage.pkgsrc > >Pacifist also is pretty happy to show the insides of a flat package. > >There is also a QuickLook plugin that someone wrote: >http://www.quicklookplugins.com/2008/03/02/suspicious-package-u >pdated-to-v11/ > > > > >On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) wrote: >> Yes, thanks. I double-checked the min install OS, and it was 10.5 for >> the meta/main package. I'd only set it to 10.3 for the sub-packages. >> Thanks! >> >> I wonder why apple changed to a flat package. It use to be helpful >> sometimes to look in a package bundle when the install wasn't going >> well. >> >> Cheers >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Iceberg-Dev [mailto:dev.iceberg@gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:40 AM >>> To: Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) >>> Cc: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com >>> Subject: Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9 >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I've created a .pkg with PM 3 on 10.5. I set the pkg's minimum OS >>>> version as 10.3. It works fine on 10.5 and 10.6, but when I run on >>>> 10.3.9 (PMac G4), I get the error "the bill of materials for this >>>> package was not found". >>> >>> Is the minimum OS version a requirement or the target OS? >>> >>>> The pkg contains two other packages. PM used to make a >metapackage, >>>> but >>>> when I loaded the PM project into PM 3, it now builds only >as a .pkg, >>>> not .mpkg. Is this part of the problem? >>>> >>>> Also, the final output pkg is a file, not a bundle, which is also >>>> new to >>>> me. The sub packages I built with PM 3 are .pkg files too, but >>>> bundles. >>>> Is there something I set in one project but not the other that I >>>> haven't >>>> found? >>> >>> If you get a file instead of a bundle, this could mean that the >>> target OS has changed and is now 10.5 and you are building a flat >>> package/distribution instead of a bundle package/metapackage. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/bc%40apple.com >> >> This email sent to bc(a)apple.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.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9
by Bill Coderre 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com There were a lot of small reasons to go flat. One reason is that a single-fork single-file installer package is that it's much easier to ship and store on non-Mac OS file systems without damage. Another is that it makes applying a digital signature simpler. There were others I'm not recalling at this moment. You can look inside packages by doing pkgutil --expand MyPackage.pkg MyPackage.pkgsrc Pacifist also is pretty happy to show the insides of a flat package. There is also a QuickLook plugin that someone wrote: http://www.quicklookplugins.com/2008/03/02/suspicious-package-updated-to-v1… On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:32 AM, Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) wrote: > Yes, thanks. I double-checked the min install OS, and it was 10.5 for > the meta/main package. I'd only set it to 10.3 for the sub-packages. > Thanks! > > I wonder why apple changed to a flat package. It use to be helpful > sometimes to look in a package bundle when the install wasn't going > well. > > Cheers > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Iceberg-Dev [mailto:dev.iceberg@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2010 4:40 AM >> To: Michael Stauffer (Circular Logic) >> Cc: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com >> Subject: Re: Error running a pkg on 10.3.9 >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've created a .pkg with PM 3 on 10.5. I set the pkg's minimum OS >>> version as 10.3. It works fine on 10.5 and 10.6, but when I run on >>> 10.3.9 (PMac G4), I get the error "the bill of materials for this >>> package was not found". >> >> Is the minimum OS version a requirement or the target OS? >> >>> The pkg contains two other packages. PM used to make a metapackage, >>> but >>> when I loaded the PM project into PM 3, it now builds only as a .pkg, >>> not .mpkg. Is this part of the problem? >>> >>> Also, the final output pkg is a file, not a bundle, which is also >>> new to >>> me. The sub packages I built with PM 3 are .pkg files too, but >>> bundles. >>> Is there something I set in one project but not the other that I >>> haven't >>> found? >> >> If you get a file instead of a bundle, this could mean that the >> target OS has changed and is now 10.5 and you are building a flat >> package/distribution instead of a bundle package/metapackage. >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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/bc%40apple.com > > This email sent to bc(a)apple.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.… This email sent to site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com

1 0

Re: Push a plist file to all users - ownership question
by Don Montalvo 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=DKMrCjI0UdH6q1EL2ZUilTzscxDhyzzEaWt0uExxxmY=; b=SNl7a0u8RFKCjm0ZU3nyOMEaZ9CKouyQduNTnBxl4Jb0XEn5OkNlIiKjRZN8dokntW q/lqxuLqfg03QyTY5qVf5hCShR3Ks18EW/xr/V9hm7RZ3y0aHY9saLfgHbmOcpUWuLFC 4zfxW5JuESK6NMckvKU/QDpqhidoleNSHLsWc= Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=GKEvoMv7Wh9e6QIki42Jtu0qZL2fkDh4Z9TTLCPHGbsO/0jE+whKybokHrF8xt7wrI z2zN3yvTjmmglSOhq3dqwkdqAq4CUW0kD4BHQy5OYhemM3Aa+QugDlaKAdsQ32miXcS9 im1kUI4WvFo1hdaAg3OGp0XtRyUHY53NM78Vw= Per Olofsson <per.olofsson(a)gu.se> wrote: > 3 nov 2010 kl. 11.55 skrev Jason Pelletier: > >> If you don't care about the group ownership as much you cam just add a single line to the loop you already have. We do this all the time. >> >>> #!/bin/sh >>> # >>> # loop >>> for i in $(/bin/ls /Users) >>> do >>> /usr/bin/ditto /System/Library/User\ Template/English.lproj/Library/Preferences/com.mypreference.plist /Users/$i/Library/Preferences/com.mypreference.plist >> >> chown $i:staff /Users/$i/Library/Preferences/com.mypreferences.plist >> >>> done >>> exit 0 > > Be aware that this does not cover: > * Accounts created later. > * Network accounts. > * Filevault protected accounts. > > A LoginHook or a script that runs before the app is launched covers all users. > > Per Olofsson Hi Per, * The installer places the file(s) in the User Template, that should take care of accounts created later. * Users all have local home directories (we use "Create Local Account" in Directory Services). * Good point re: Filevault...hadn't thought of that scenario...hmmm... Thanks for all the great feedback! Don _______________________________________________ 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: Push a plist file to all users - ownership question
by Chris Devers 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=GkJ74aH4ItXltglqSbC/VzAbZibqz6N3BLJS6oVITaA=; b=iFg43ZAtcjLar3HU1+x5QfeBlUzA3EiZY64O/4IrQnxAap2JPSScMee7xfH1hQ1M6l Cj+SJ7WobZ3BFK50WLlxtfzWHg54RGu68Dz+gioQF+nWncGsks68iw31+w27CWO5R9s0 923oPJ8TPP4/GrVbixz6IHDjGDFYuIlsHuwqo= Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; b=gUbNUNkNEkrunQkhAP9Pw4YecwkE0viXbfRazhQtmtavyQEdhmKpp9utK6u06XaNZq oaX9amQVejy+2jq6umr2marGjg0puGFhm30NQcG5DgnKiSoD6qSCj6XVlxxN6nSc+3jF Grj7qS62QbxhZzNnRvqT7LBvzvSBJ3ThMGWzc= _______________________________________________ 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: Push a plist file to all users - ownership question
by Don Montalvo 03 Nov '10

03 Nov '10

site_archiver(a)lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev(a)lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:mime-version :content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=arjTfDYesim42cxmHcbQ3qPfxH9D+WFLgsAn3xuaZyo=; b=Ir572SO3rVHTs06abHaTyb2v5/pZKga4FaLoNPOOQydUbZIGbralp8ESxBXsWm8XVv /7a1P9H3o+1elJf3tBW7zfsyVbiaSKb7G05pI7BGL0UFFm5zZX2CGoQnZ3wrr8x14oqT i9dmrPiAiUeKagvAj6ocWosnEVkpw2Egcms1k= Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; b=S9E+GnN4Opb6xZZ941wSVHtlCfLZFUX8sOZgZ9XGyyRTbUmxkhqrdZN016HVUnCeD+ U2oxdiJ1loTRpnOZmf4IS1KpOhTH+XgeB5NKkJkWr8dQunHf1qQVU+i0ZuEo5dpy4tbh GAsy9HSMBj+LVEJ27Q3Pc6zidj4ZTUoONzKNU= On Nov 3, 2010, at 5:55 AM, Jason Pelletier wrote: > If you don't care about the group ownership as much you cam just add a single line to the loop you already have. We do this all the time. > >> #!/bin/sh >> # >> # loop >> for i in $(/bin/ls /Users) >> do >> /usr/bin/ditto /System/Library/User\ Template/English.lproj/Library/Preferences/com.mypreference.plist /Users/$i/Library/Preferences/com.mypreference.plist > > chown $i:staff /Users/$i/Library/Preferences/com.mypreferences.plist > >> done >> exit 0 > > Jason Awesome, thanks for the nugget Jason! :) Don _______________________________________________ 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