[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [platform-dev] MacOS .dmg vs .tar.gz
|
Alex,
I wonder how notarization plays into this picture? I was under
the impression that only the *.dmg is notarized and that
notarization is important...
I find the whole discussion very odd given the platform has just
removed its *.tar.gz going forward but now "we" want EPP packages
to have them, though to rename them to something else. Why is the
platform moving away from this while the EPP is moving sideways
back toward it? Has any user ever asked for a *.tar.gz?
Something is wrong with the overall big picture...
Regards,
Ed
On 13.11.2020 12:09, Alex Blewitt
wrote:
On 11 Nov 2020, at 20:03,
Thomas Singer <ts-swt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
What exactly is worse [with .tar.gz] then with a .dmg
... ?
Nothing, they are both equally functional. It's only a
matter of personal preferences. :-(
There is a slight difference in the dialog that’s
shown, as per the previous thread.
When downloading a .tar.gz file, it shows up as a
.tar in the downloads list.
We can optimise this if we rename the macOS
downloads from .tar.gz to .tgz. Atom and VSCode are distributed
as .tgz files, with the result that Safari auto-extracts them.
If we distribute the app as a .tgz then Safari will
auto-extract it as a runnable app and have the same dialog as
with the .dmg.
I’ve raised this bug against the EPP package to
suggest that we see if we can produce the Eclipse bundles as
.tgz instead of .tar.gz, which should be simple but may have
some other effects.
Feel free to add your thoughts there.
Alex
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev