site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: installer-dev@lists.apple.com Racist as well as stupid. That explains it. I was born and raised in the states, btw, not that it should matter. What part of "10.2 and later" don't you understand? Mike Mike On Jul 24, 2007, at 3:32 AM, Andy Kim wrote: It's a free tool, give me a break with your whining. It's Apple's way of helping you and your users to say goodbye to 10.3. -Andy On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Mike wrote: Mike _______________________________________________ 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... On Jul 24, 2007, at 11:01 AM, Mike wrote: Oh jeez, not another overly arrogant Korean. What is it with you people? When will you Asians stop telling Americans who have been working on a platform for 17 years how to do our jobs? I was writing software when you were, most likely still in diapers. Let's see............ I just reread the entire Software Delivery Guide for a second time and on page 7 it says: "Software requirements: This document assumes that delivery solutions are created using Mac OS X v10.4 or later and Xcode 2.3 or later. The delivery solutions described in this document can be installed on computers running Mac OS X v10.2 and later." Regardless of whether it is a "free" utility or not is irrelevant. Xcode is free too. Next you will be telling me Apple has no responsibility to support that either? If Apple provides the tools, it is their responsibility to support them. Maybe no one should expect a crappy OS like Linux to work either just because it is "free". MXPLAY looks pretty crappy BTW. Nice flashing UI elements as I drag and resize the window. LOL. Andy Kim wrote: It's a free tool, give me a break with your whining. Installer plugins is a poorly documented feature but if you had looked a the one and only sample from Apple ("Plugins are only supported in Mac OS X Tiger (v10.4) and later.") or searched through the mailing list you would've realized this. I did. It's Apple's way of helping you and your users to say goodbye to 10.3. -Andy On Jul 24, 2007, at 1:17 AM, Mike wrote: So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. _______________________________________________ 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/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk@mxplay.com _______________________________________________ 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/lists% 40michael-amorose.com This email sent to lists@michael-amorose.com Installer plugins is a poorly documented feature but if you had looked a the one and only sample from Apple ("Plugins are only supported in Mac OS X Tiger (v10.4) and later.") or searched through the mailing list you would've realized this. I did. So in other words, a separate installer solution such as VISE or InstallerMaker is a quicker solution if one already has an elaborate installer for 10.4 using Packagemaker and lots of custom plugins. Thanks Apple - make me build two separate installers for my product in order to support both 10.3 & 10.4 - that's very nice of you. Next product I'll write my own installer from scratch that supports both. What junk Apple is shipping these days. Bill Coderre wrote: On Jul 24, 2007, at 12:10 AM, Mike wrote: So how does one then go about creating any kind of a custom installer using Packagemaker on a 10.3 system? In 10.3, you can add custom code at InstallationCheck, VolumeCheck, pre- and post-flight script phases. You cannot add more installation panels/pages without doing something really unpleasant such as overriding ObjectiveC code. This has nothing to do with PackageMaker itself. It's just that the Installer.app in 10.3 does not support as much stuff as it does in 10.4. _______________________________________________ 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/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk@mxplay.com _______________________________________________ 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/andyk% 40mxplay.com This email sent to andyk@mxplay.com This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com