site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com Message: 1 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:01:02 -0700 From: Nigel Kersten <nigel@explanatorygap.net> Subject: Re: Metapackage that can install depending on architecture To: Ted Brown <installerdev@tzande.com> Cc: installer-dev@lists.apple.com Message-ID: <937079A5-792A-45A2-AD46-FDF9130874F4@explanatorygap.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Some people re-package other companies installers so that they can easily deploy them. Making a universal binary isn't an option. One would think Adobe would be able to figure out how to make a universal binary. But there are still separate installers for the Flash Player (even though one is called "UB".) It is odd how Adobe are doing this, but we've tested the UB version on PPC quite a lot, and have had no problems with it. This also gets around the horrible Adobe installer that asks for elevated privileges and then decides not to use them when it scans / Applications for app bundles that it thinks need updating. _______________________________________________ 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... I wanted to take the time and thank Andy and Stephan as well as everyone that has provided input in this discussion. In our case, we have had issues (particularly with Tiger) where the Intel version of GroupWise gave problems on our PPC systems. Novell and Adobe have that weird way of distributing these apps. Packaging allows me to get around this problem and it has been working fine. But I must chime in and I say that I really dislike that horrible Adobe Installer. It has been so problematic for us. On Mar 28, 2008, at 1:02 PM, installer-dev-request@lists.apple.com wrote: On Mar 26, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Ted Brown wrote: This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com