10 ms·

Why not .pkg (next, next, installer)? For the past week, I've been tweaking my startup's CLI to install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing, and everything that go

Why not .pkg (next, next, installer)? For the past week, I've been tweaking my startup's CLI to install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing, and everything that goes along with that. I've often wondered why so many companies opt for the icon method.

cosmic_cheese 2mo ago
As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do. Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.
- ianmurrays 2mo ago
  Same here. Especially because most installer packages rely on these specifically to install "obscure" things, so I'm immediately distrustful of them.
  - stevekerr 2mo ago
    That makes a lot of sense. With the icon method: The user is in full control. In our case, the CLI is part of a data sync system, so it does need a "special" once-per-hour check for new data (keeping local and mobile in sync). I've actually been surprised how strict Apple is before it will happily let signed code run. But the average user (including me previously) doesn't know that. I think trust comes down to being clear up front. Note to self: Add extra details/options to installer (WYSIWYG)
  - philistine 2mo ago
    I moved to the Mac App Store version of OneDrive specifically because of the constant issues with the background processes it insists it must have running at all times. The MAS version has only one of those and it works.
- whstl 2mo ago
  I really dislike PKGs and I have bought an app called Pacifist app to specifically know what they're doing.
  - guessmyname 2mo ago
    Link, for anyone interested: https://www.charlessoft.com/ https://www.charlessoft.com/ I prefer this one: https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ But I’ve used both at different times with equally great results.
mpfh 2mo ago
[dead]
numpad0 2mo ago
Inertia? It's the standardized method on macOS. Macs have been this way at least since early 90s. InstallShield likewise had been normal on Windows since early 90s, so the modern MSI installers feel more normal and straightforward to Windows users.
frollogaston 2mo ago
It's annoying to click through.
lapcat 2mo ago
> install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing Keep in mind that a package installer becomes obsolete and nonfunctional when the code signing certificate expires, unlike an app.
kikimora 2mo ago
I like drag&drop way more than .pkg. just easier to deal with. If you do a CLI tool then maybe `brew install CLI` is the way to go instead of a pkg file?
cantSpellSober 2mo ago
PKG if you need to install files aside from your application bundle.

cosmic_cheese 2mo ago

As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do. Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.

ianmurrays 2mo ago
Same here. Especially because most installer packages rely on these specifically to install "obscure" things, so I'm immediately distrustful of them.
- stevekerr 2mo ago
  That makes a lot of sense. With the icon method: The user is in full control. In our case, the CLI is part of a data sync system, so it does need a "special" once-per-hour check for new data (keeping local and mobile in sync). I've actually been surprised how strict Apple is before it will happily let signed code run. But the average user (including me previously) doesn't know that. I think trust comes down to being clear up front. Note to self: Add extra details/options to installer (WYSIWYG)
- philistine 2mo ago
  I moved to the Mac App Store version of OneDrive specifically because of the constant issues with the background processes it insists it must have running at all times. The MAS version has only one of those and it works.
whstl 2mo ago
I really dislike PKGs and I have bought an app called Pacifist app to specifically know what they're doing.
- guessmyname 2mo ago
  Link, for anyone interested: https://www.charlessoft.com/ https://www.charlessoft.com/ I prefer this one: https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ https://mothersruin.com/software/SuspiciousPackage/ But I’ve used both at different times with equally great results.

mpfh 2mo ago

[dead]

numpad0 2mo ago

Inertia? It's the standardized method on macOS. Macs have been this way at least since early 90s. InstallShield likewise had been normal on Windows since early 90s, so the modern MSI installers feel more normal and straightforward to Windows users.

frollogaston 2mo ago

It's annoying to click through.

lapcat 2mo ago

> install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing Keep in mind that a package installer becomes obsolete and nonfunctional when the code signing certificate expires, unlike an app.

kikimora 2mo ago

I like drag&drop way more than .pkg. just easier to deal with. If you do a CLI tool then maybe `brew install CLI` is the way to go instead of a pkg file?

cantSpellSober 2mo ago

PKG if you need to install files aside from your application bundle.