>> 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.

Could the scripts be placed in the .app directory then, as siblings of
the Contents dir?

>> ...
>> 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?

It (and the double-quotes and capitalization) was me portraying the
use-case from the actor's POV, a grumpy-newbie, to emphasize the
importance of the newbies "first kiss" impression of Squeak.

>> 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.

Okay.  We'll have to ask Eliot about that.  To me, that use-case is
secondary to the more important one (above) to get the grumpy-newbie
kissing instead of cussing.

>> 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.

(I was simply role playing the primary actor of this use-case again,
the grumpy-newbie).

>> 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].

Earlier in this thread, you wrote:
----------
    Craig> 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).

    Craig>     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.
-----------

I've read it 3 times, sorry if I'm being dense:  I'm not understanding
the causaility in the first paragraph that leads to the requirement of
the inner-Zip mentioned in the second paragraph.  If "the .app
directory has to be compressed and uncompressed by itself (no
siblings)", fine, but why the inner zip instead of just staying iwth
the "Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app"?

Since we can't have siblings to the .app, here is a second-best Zip
structure I hope we can do:

Squeak-4.5-All-in-One.app
    Contents
    squeak.bat
    squeak.sh

Can that be done?

> 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 :).