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=nYsFw8i/GVd8r8mmD51Gpx5tfPs=; b=KZPrmODIxsC1oT8LD7advmr7bllpINq2uws2/hTQvKxzAojvJWMApa3mvKilmD5U2SXuUcJPgN4say3qYvneHJtNxRK6LupdQVqQmMGI6ZmgxInylVGWokijouj9iGDuVwfDFSSY6wgM8GwpqOKO6VChbFzK8+uQ4cXCLAgKpc8= Thread-topic: Expected behavior for upgrades with changed file locations User-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.101115 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 (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