| 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 11 Nov 2020, at 18:52, Liviu Ionescu <ilg@xxxxxxxxxx> 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
