site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=messagingengine.com; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=smtpout; bh=dsUqFP+WJtZs3bmYbfYdzwZZWpE=; b=gbMaiBfUr5dRt1eEDKLqGtM0p5LokQju8AfST18BBEdHBPJpEupzLKV1TJBJtyhuHmja1afl/sbXFYt16wl2LDPN0tJBhbBYTPOyazd21UfXxRfLyeEBbuCCbxhDnIwoRm2fRDslUirXRik5Aq242sMGpEzrEMjdVInYCW1LCRU= Thread-index: AcrBNzwmo7QjJulaAE+LMT+fI2BQ7A== Thread-topic: Sub-packages for metapackage and "No payload could be found" warning User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002 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 _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Installer-dev mailing list (Installer-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/installer-dev/site_archiver%40lists.a... This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com