Hi Craig,

On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:

>
> > The app does not run for me:
> >
> > $ spctl -a -t exec -vv Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app
> > Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app: rejected
> > source=no usable signature
> >
> > could that have to do with changes in 10.9.5?
>
>      Hm, I don't have an older MacOS to check when this started, but the
> situation with regard to creating and expanding ZIP archives without
> messing with the signature/contents correlation has become annoying (as
> I thought it might).
>

I have a 10.6.8 machine.  I'm checking this now.

     For the signature to be valid, the .app directory has to be
> compressed and uncompressed by itself (no siblings), and it has to be
> done with the Mac Finder GUI (not from zip/unzip on the command line, in
> either MacOS or another OS that has access to the filesystem).
>

Why uncompressed by itself?  If one uncompresses an archive containing a
foo.app with a bar sibling, that will surely produce exactly the same bits
in foo.app as uncompressing an archive that contains only foo.app.  The
decompression program would be broken if it creates different bits, right?
So...

If the archive is created in two steps, the first as you state including
only Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app, using the finder, and then, via the command
line using zip -u to add the siblings how can that not work?  It can't
produce a different Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app without zip being hopelessly
broken, which it isn't, right?


>
>      So... the release is now a ZIP archive that contains the two
> non-Mac launch scripts, along with another ZIP archive which contains
> the .app directory. This also means that non-Mac users will get the
> "__MAC" and ".DS_Store" debris after uncompressing, as well.
>

It doesn't have to be this way.  Use zip -u to add the siblings at a later
date.


>      I still think all this is tolerable. However, I'll say again here
> that I strongly prefer having the .app directory be the root of our
> release artifact, a totally self-contained thing, and leaving it to
> users to set up launch shortcuts appropriate to their local system
> (given a directory structure that is obvious enough for them to realize
> how to do it).


Craig, you are a decent human being, but your attitude on this is so
discourteous to users.  Why *should* they have to unpack and decode the
structure of a .app, especially when they might be WIndows or Linux users
only.  Why don't you see it as an obligation to provide a pleasant and
simple install step to that community rather than asking them to perform a
manual step?  I don't understand.  I want to go on record therefore that I
think providing the scripts is important, especially for newbies, a group
we surely want to appeal to.

When the release has other stuff at a sibling or higher
> level than the .app directory, I think people are more likely to think,
> mistakenly, that they can duplicate, copy, rename, and move things
> around without breaking them. I realize I disagree with the 4.5 release
> manager (Chris) on this, but I still want to be on record.
>
>      New bits at [1].
>
>
>      thanks,
>
> -C
>
> [1] http://bit.ly/1CBwx1I (Dropbox)
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> netjam.org
> +31 6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
> + 1 415 287 3547 (no SMS)
>
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20141012/2015f861/attachment.htm