Re: How packages are recognized...
Re: How packages are recognized...
- Subject: Re: How packages are recognized...
- From: Alastair Houghton <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 15:54:49 +0100
On 7 Aug 2007, at 15:47, Andrew Merenbach wrote:
I know that the OP asked, so Alastair was simply answering him,
but, from a philosophical point of view...
Does it actually make any sense to set the bundle bit of a bundle
when you could simply use a UTI declaration? Bundles that aren't
of the default type (.kext, .plugin, .bundle, .app) don't tend to
exist on their own, do they? rather, they have an application to
which they're attached. Thus might the UTI declaration be a little
more effective?
Perhaps the biggest advantage of UTIs over this kind of thing is that
they aren't specific to HFS+. i.e. If you copy a bundle that has its
bundle bit set to a disk that isn't using HFS+, it's possible that
you'll end up with a folder rather than a bundle (I haven't checked,
but it seems likely). The same wouldn't happen with UTI declarations.
Kind regards,
Alastair.
--
http://alastairs-place.net
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden