site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com On jeudi, septembre 6, 2007, at 11:14 PM, Peter Bierman wrote: On mardi, septembre 4, 2007, at 09:39 PM, Peter Bierman wrote: I can't beat that hi-score. _______________________________________________ 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... At 10:58 PM +0200 9/6/07, Stéphane Sudre wrote: <installer-gui-script> was the element name initially, but was simplified to <installer-script> before 10.4 went GM. Unfortunately, a lot of Apple software is built from templates, and things that aren't actively broken are low on the priority list for fixing. Then the templates get copied, and things like this linger for years. Well, maybe it will bee sooner than later since I filed a bug report against it... But having seen bug reports in some parts of the OS being addressed more than 3 years after their submission, I don't have great expectancies though. It's a question of priorities. Do we change (and re-test) something that isn't causing an actual problem, or do we fix a bug that's bothering someone? As you say, it depends on priority. But on the other hand, as people are using Apple's made packages as templates to create their own, you might end up with a bunch of externally made packages that include the incorrect tag and then you will have to support it even longer as if you break the backward compatibility, there will be someone filing a bug report or a DTS incident. Imagining that Apple was to release a new major OS version in a few months and a new format would be used for packages (as publicly stated on http://xarchiver.blogspot.com/ and in a post on the xar mailing list), wouldn't it be a great opportunity to deprecate this erroneous tag for new packages in this new format? These "correctness" bugs can end up languishing for years. The oldest one in my own queue is from 1995 (and yes, still relevant, sigh.) On the other side of that, I just had a bug returned to me to verify as fixed that I filed in 1998. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com