I have codesigned my installers for Mac and Win, so that there are no additional security alerts and user request. If the installer is launched as an Admin (what I can require for with my innosetup installer for Win, on Mac I can't require, but most Mac users have admin rights), it replaces everything existing (except of my registration file at another location) without additional requests.
Tiemo -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: use-livecode [mailto:use-livecode-boun...@lists.runrev.com] Im Auftrag von Graham Samuel via use-livecode Gesendet: Freitag, 12. Mai 2017 11:21 An: How to use LiveCode <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> Cc: Graham Samuel <livf...@mac.com> Betreff: Re: Update strategy? Thanks again Jacque Yes, I see the wisdom of that - your method also avoids the issue of launching a completely automatic update without giving the user an opportunity to refuse. So you just get the user to run the installer, the same way as Tiemo does - is that right? Obviously one wants the update to be as user-friendly as possible. Can the installer (on Mac and Windows) simply clear out the old version without asking for permission? This is desirable from an ease-of-use standpoint. Presumably also if registration has already taken place, the record of that will still be stored in the local prefs file or wherever, so the user won’t have to re-insert the registration key. Still trying to get it exactly right. Graham > On 10 May 2017, at 22:11, J. Landman Gay via use-livecode > <use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > > On 5/10/17 1:00 PM, Graham Samuel via use-livecode wrote: >> Yes, but what if you want to update the launcher itself? Maybe I have >> made my ‘splash’ stack too rich in function, but I can easily see it >> needing revision. Because of this, I’m thinking of altering the >> structure of the app so that the update code is more or less all that >> is in the standalone recognised by the operating system, and all >> other stacks (including 90 percent of the original splash stack) are >> simply downloaded after the decision whether to update is made. Or is >> this stupid? > > No, it's smart. The launcher should be the barest minimum required to get the > rest of the data/stacks/whatever to load. That way there is rarely a need to > update. > > I've generally taken the easy way out. If I do need to update the launcher > itself, it asks the user if they want to update and then launches a URL to a > web page that has the download. I figure if the user could get it installed > the first time, they can install the update. That's lazy on my part, but so > far there haven't been many issues with it. > > That's for desktop only. On mobile it's easy to let the OS do the updating. > > -- > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com > HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com > > > _______________________________________________ > use-livecode mailing list > use-livecode@lists.runrev.com > Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription > preferences: > http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
