On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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.
>

and the app runs just fine on 10.6.8.


>
>      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
>



-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20141012/ca468758/attachment.htm