I continue to think there are some wires badly crossed somewhere.
The conclusion that a *.tar.gz is equally functional to a *.dmg and that
everyone should be perfectly happy with a *.tar.gz (perhaps re-suffixed)
kind of suggests that all the effort invested in producing a *.dmg and
notarizing the darned thing is/was pretty much completely pointless and
mostly misguided. I find that hard to believe.
You're testing on recent release of MacOs?
On 13.11.2020 13:00, Liviu Ionescu wrote:
On 13 Nov 2020, at 13:42, Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote:
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...
The tests were performed using the binaries available in M2:
https://download.eclipse.org/technology/epp/downloads/release/2020-12/M2/
As you can see, there are both .dmg and .tar.gz.
I don't know how/if the binaries were notarized, or if there is something wrong
with the notarization process, but the Eclipse.app extracted from the .tar.gz
is equally functional as the one extracted from the .dmg.
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?
The GNU MCU/ARM Eclipse (now Embedded CDT) users always used .tar.gz files,
since I never produced .dmg files.
Regards,
Liviu
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
_______________________________________________
platform-dev mailing list
platform-dev@eclipse.org
To unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
