Hi,
  Yes, for the mac, a unique type would do it.  I was just lazy...

cheers

bruce

Karl Ramberg <karl.ramberg at chello.se> wrote:
> 
> 
> Bruce ONeel wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > lex at cc.gatech.edu (Lex Spoon) wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > As for packaging, there are two FAQ's on the Swiki about "executables",
> > > and there is a project regarding self-extracting executables.  But
> > > so far, I don't know if anyone has *tried* to actually package and
> > > distribute something based on Squeak....
> >
> >   It's not the cleanest in the world, but I've been sucessful distributing
> > applications to non squeak users just by giving them a mac .sit file, telling
> > them to unstuff it and then double clicking on what was in fact a
> > smalltalk image.  Of course there would be more than a few problems
> > if the already had Squeak installed...
> 
> Couldn't this be fixed on a mac by giving the VM and the image a unique
> filetype and creator? Just like one could give Windows a unique suffix
> and compile a VM that only response to that.
> Or give the VM instructions to only respond to certain image names.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > bruce
> 
> Karl