Hoi--

     Tobias writes:

> This is because the codesigning will store some stuff in resource
> files, which are only preserved if ._stuff files or __MACOSX folders
> are present.

     I can believe that. I haven't looked into the details of what the
signing actually does.

***

     Chris writes:

> Okay, so I actually had posted the prior one you gave me to the FTP
> site, the one without the embedded Zip, before I saw this new one,
> WITH the embedded zip.
>
> Between Tobias' and Eliot's responses,
>
> Tobias> The app does not run for me:
>  Eliot> and the app runs just fine on 10.6.8.
> Tobias> Then it might be a “version 1 vs Version 2 signature” as in
> Tobias> the Apple note...
>
> I can't tell what our status is.  Can the one Craig signed and I
> posted (w/o the embedded zip) be run by Mac users or not?

     Apparently it's fine on 10.6.8, where Gatekeeper doesn't exist
(Apple introduced it in MacOS 10.7.5, see [1]). On MacOS 10.9.5,
Gatekeeper rejects the signature.

> Can't you sign the .app + the two scripts together?

     No; well, not with the scripts where you want them. The thing being
signed has to conform to a particular Apple "bundle" format, which wants
everything to be rooted in the .app directory. There are a bunch of
other constraints, too, most prominently for us the one about arbitrary
stuff disallowed in .app/Contents. That's what got this whole
conversation started.

> You keep mentioning this feature about setting up custom launch
> shortcuts but ignoring my rebuttal that the audience the All-In-One is
> designed for is for newbies.

     I'm not ignoring anything you'd said, we simply disagree. In
particular, we disagree about how much to treat a Squeak newbie like a
newbie with regard to their host platform.

> Newbies are the ones who have only just heard about Squeak and are
> saying, "Just Show Me Squeak Right Fucking Now".

     Was that profanity really necessary?

     Anyway, the way things were a month ago, command-line and Windows
Squeak newbies were already having to go into the .app folder to start
Squeak. They had to have exactly as much host platform knowledge before
the Gatekeeper-caused change as after.

> The group you're referring to, who wants to unzip the All-In-One, and
> then set it up in custom locations with shortcuts for repeated access
> over the long-term, those folks are not who the All-In-One is
> targeting.

     That's not the use case I get from Eliot. His *primary* concern in
the 2014-10-02 board meeting was that someone could put the contents of
the ZIP in a place already included in their search paths (like
/usr/local/bin), and then "just type the name of the script" to run Squeak.

> Eliot> Why don't you see it as an obligation to provide a pleasant and
> Eliot> simple install step to that community rather than asking them
> Eliot> to perform a manual step?
>
> Craig> On the contrary, I do see an obligation to make the
> Craig> installation process as pleasant as it can be. Those users are
> Craig> already performing manual steps: downloading the ZIP file
> Craig> manually, unpacking it manually...
>
> Done at this point.  Once unpacked, it's ready to run.

     Not to Eliot's satisfaction as I understood it in the 2014-10-02
board meeting, no. He wanted the results of the installation to include
a script in one of his search paths, so that he could type the name of
the script from a shell with an arbitrary working directory, and have it
run. For that to happen, the installation must include putting the
contents of the ZIP in a particular place (like /usr/local/bin).

> No, the $PATH variable has nothing to do with launching Squeak from
> the All-In-One.  This makes no sense to me..

     Hey, this is just what I heard Eliot saying. Apparently you heard
something else. There's another board meeting on Thursday...

> If I downloaded a ZIP and I found another Zip inside it, I would think
> that the .sh and .bat were things that would unpack that zip FOR ME.

     Great, we can make them do that.

> If it has to be in teh same dir, then why the fuck didn't the authors
> just put it that way?

     Chris, please calm down. This issue is already settled, and by you
no less. I only wanted to speak my view for the record. Why don't you
just let my dissenting comments stand and move on? I don't understand
why you're getting so upset about this.

> I don't know if we've made any progress whatsoever from the original
> post though, which expressed that the All-In-One was having trouble
> for Mac users.

     We've made substantial progress: we've figured out how to make a
ZIP file which jumps through all the hoops set for it. The latest one I
made is such a ZIP, at [2]. The one currently on squeak.org, as I
discussed in detail above, is not (bad signature). Apparently we should
make one more version with Linux and Windows scripts that unzip the .app
folder if it hasn't been unzipped already, or forget the all-in-one
approach altogether (or forget about Apple signatures :).

***

     Ken G. Brown writes:

> Having watched the recent discussions about troubles with the
> all-in-one release, I'd just like to make the observation that it
> might be time to forget the all-in-one. I personally don't like to
> have to download a bunch of extra large files if I just am interested
> in the release for a certain platform. And cluttering up the Mac .app
> folder with other stuff for other platforms just seems somehow really
> wrong.

     As I said in [3], an all-in-one release gives users the significant
convenience of having a single artifact to take between platforms. I
actually do meet new users who care about platform portability. We can
also make the Squeak app manage multiple user images, so users need not
have multiple copies of the Squeak app around just to run multiple
images, nor need to understand any conventions about the Resources
folder. That makes having a single artifact that can move between
platforms even more valuable.

> In my opinion it is pretty easy for a newbie to decide up front
> whether to download for Windows, Linux or Mac and have a nicely
> tailored install for that platform.

     Sure; if it were up to me I'd do all four: Windows, Linux, Mac, and
all-in-one.


     thanks,

-C

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper_(OS_X)
[2] http://bit.ly/1CBwx1I (Dropbox)
[3] http://bit.ly/ZXYW4u (lists.squeakfoundation.org)

--
Craig Latta
netjam.org
+31   6 2757 7177 (SMS ok)
+ 1 415  287 3547 (no SMS)