I assume that development will not continue because the OSX paradigm of
installation is to simply drag a folder over. But that's too complicated for many users who need to update only certain components of an application (which happens frequently with my app). For example, in my installer I install a complete copy of XPInstall as well, and have an install option called "update"; which downloads an xpi package containing all the files that have updated since the last major version. To update their application, all they have to do in double click on XPInstall, select the update option and go. They don't have to visit my web site, locate links, do a download, figure out where they downloaded
the file to, figure out how to unzip/unstuff/unbin/un-whatever, locate the installed software, move files, etc. XPInstall makes it brainless for them (and some of them need that). I've even included a component that just updates the XPInstall config files, so if a new option in the installer is really needed they can update that, without having to do anything manually.
I realize that this may not be an issue for Mozilla/Netscape. I'm considering sponsoring/organizing/managing/recruiting for a fork, since it's an open source license. I don't do c++ myself. Any advice for finding like minded people?
Thanks
Rob
Steve Dagley wrote:
Frank Nospam wrote:If Mach-O gets an installer app some day, would it share any code with the old Classic installer?There are dozens of open bug reports involving problems with the Mozilla installer for Mac. Given that all OS X builds (both CFM and Mach-O) are sent as standalone applications inside .dmg, should the bugs be RESOLVED WONTFIX?
Yes, Mac installer bugs are WONTFIX fodder. The Mac installer code was never Carbonized and there is no intention to ever change that.
