I am looking to create a mpkg that targets installations to both the user home directory and the system volume (for example, plugins in both ~/Library/ and /Library/).
I can only seem to be able to do one or the other (not two together). I also have found virtually no documentation on this subject. Installation domains seems to be glazed over.
Can anyone shed light into this? I have been trying to accomplish this in both PackageMaker.app as well as Packages.app.
You probably need a custom postflight script to handle the user specific plugins.
I recommend the luggage to roll your own pkg with a makefile.
Related
We want to improve the reproducibility of the analyses at our institute. To this effect, we contemplate on implementing a system based on Singularity. The idea is that at the beginning of the analysis, the user can choose a machine configuration (later amendments must be possible) that sticks with them until the project is complete. Then, the image is archived with the analysis. Ideally, the user doesn't have to issue system admin commands (install packages etc.) in the process.
She just makes a request like "I need R with tidyverse and Python 3 and this and that in-house packages" and she gets a command that she can use to ssh into a singularity container that has those features. When she makes a new request, she gets the newest version of the programs but once the container has been deployed those versions don't change anymore.
It gets tricky when I think of the fact that multiple users will need different combinations of software. Do I need to provide an image for every combination of Software and software extension packages? If I only think of a scenario where users can choose of an arbitrary combination of {R, Julia, Python, r-tidyverse, r-data.table, r-whatever-genomic-analysis-package-on-bioconductor, python-...}
Is there a feature selection method in the veins of
singularity pull library://alpine:3.7 +r:3.2.1 +python3:3.7 +r-package:1.2.3
such that the user can
ssh cluster01 -- singularity shell project-abc.simg
and start/continue working?
If not, is there an alternative approach to supplying custom machine configurations to users using singularity?
I could find Singularity Compose, but this seems to just run multiple containers as services next to each other. So the images can stay separate. I have to merge them.
Yes, with Singularity, a dedicated image must be provided for each possible combination of packages.
Selecting a set of applications per-user is possible by changing your server configuration to the package managers Nix or GUIX, a fork of nix. The concept here is that each application/library lives within its own directory, whose name is a hash of the app! Therefore, multiple application versions can coexist and each application can link to another version of the same library.
A user can select a set of those directories as a user profile. This is a folder of symlinks into binaries in the proper application folders. From the Nix manual:
So, each user can setup their environment as they like, down to bitwise reproducability.
After the analysis, the profile can be turned into an image. I know its possible with GUIX using guix pack (tar, Docker, Singularity).
For Nix, I'm not sure. There is a project on GitHub, datakurre/nix-build-pack-docker, but it's dormant since 2015. Maybe it's enough to copy the needed subset of /nix/store into a folder, pull a NixOS image, and bind /nix/store of that image to your own folder?
I'm researching the best approach to automating our build process. I've got my own ideas (through experience on a previous non-iOS project) but need good arguments for and against various possibilities.
Objective: A single xcode project with a single target (think white-label) needs to be built in 1..N different flavours (concrete brandings) with minimum user interaction and minimum technical knowledge. For AdHoc and/or AppStore.
Essentially, that will mean specifying per build; a folder containing Icons + Splashscreen, a bundle containing brand specific resources and (presumably?) the Info.plist, specifying appname, bundle-id, etc.
Issues that need to be respected or clarified;
Manual build of a single brand via Idiot-Proof GUI (choose a git
branch/tag, specify a certain brand, configure the app e.g.
IAP-enabled, server-domainname, etc - will be written to the
info.plist)
In previous manual tests, setting the executable name in
the plist didn't work? Sorry, have forgotten the exact problem..
perhaps was only an Xcode Debug buildconfig problem, not relevant to
a distribution build?
Code-Signing?!? Can the profile be specified
on-the-fly? Some brands need to be built with the customer's own
profile.
My personal feeling: Hudson or CruiseControl + Xcode plugin.
There seems to be plenty of documentation around for an Xcode solution and I've seen this in action on a Flex project I worked on, with almost exactly the same white-label/branding requirements. Of course that was using Ant script though and there was NO behavioral config to respect. That's my only uncertainty here... I suspect it would have to be hardcoded somewhere, but that's not the answer that's going to please some people. There is a wish to be able to specify the various app-config settings (server url, is function Foo supported, is the view X displayed, etc, etc) via a GUI form, when building manually. I'm not sure how easy it would be to shoehorn that into a typical Hudson or CC config?
And hence one suggestion that has been made is to write an OSX app for building our clients. The theory being, nice clean non-tech UI for entering all the necessary meta data & app setting and a big shiny green button labelled "Build". But personally I'm skeptical that this approach is any more flexible or easier to implement than a classic CI solution.
So the question is basically, what's preferable; a classic server based, version control integrated, CI approach or a custom OSX utility?
Whichever we go for it'll almost certainly be a requirement to get it up and running in 2 or 3 days (definately less than one week).
IMHO you can resolve all issues using different targets of XCode.
Every target will share the code but it could:
be signing with diferent profiles
use diferent plist: this implies having different names..
use diferent brand images. You only have to name the image with the same name and select the correct target in file inspector.
Build with one click in XCode.
I hope this helps
An extremely later reply, but the approach I would take would be to create the white label IPA, and then create a script to:
1. Unzip it (change the .ipa file extension to .zip).
2. Change assets.
Update the info.plist (using Plistbuddy command)
Zip it again.
Resign the code.
See this script as a starting point: https://gist.github.com/catmac/1682965
Very late answer. But I would go with different .xcconfig files and multiple schemes. The scheme names could be a combination of target/brand.
Can I create a symlink to the local extension from aonther project folder? I have a common local-server and i need to implement same extension on all local project-installations. I tried to put the symlink, but some times i do not get expected output. I get it only after clearing the cache of that perticular project.
Your scenario is a common one I guess. But as Omar said, linking to the same code base of the extension through several typo3 instances is not a good practice.
But we have the same structure as yours, we realize this through SVN. All of our projects got a SVN repository and common extensions have their own repository. Through svn:externals the extensions are linked into the concrete project. This has the advantage that you can change the extension in the concrete project and after committing all other projects (that do have to update from svn though) contribute from it. I Think this would fit your needs, too.
If I understand your question correctly you have several Typo3 sites on the same server and want to share an extension between them using a symlink. I don't think that is a very great idea because many extensions use tables and every site normally has it's own database so you would have to do a lot of tinkering to get that to work.
Instead you could make all the modifications to the extension files in the typo3conf/ext/extension_name folder and then export the extension to a t3x file (Ext Manager in the Backend). This t3x file can be installed as a extension (Import extension) on all your other sites.
If you extension does not use a database and you are planning to make frequent changes then I guess you should be able to make that work (the symlink). Otherwise I recommend you use the first approach I described.
I have not tried this, but you should be able to install extensions globally in Typo3. What this means is that the given extension is placed inside '(typo3_src/)typo3/ext/' instead of 'typo3conf/ext/', presuming both sites use the same Typo3 Core/Source (and thus typo3_src is a symlink to the location of the core).
You can enable installing global extensions via the Install Tool. Once inside the tool, click on 'All Configuration', then search for allowGlobalInstall. Or put the following line into your localconf.php:
$TYPO3_CONF_VARS['EXT']['allowGlobalInstall'] = '1';
At last, but not least, you need to make sure the 'typo3/ext/' directory is writeable.
Hope this will be to some help. If you have any further questions, let me know :)
As Björn mentioned, I'd sugegst to install them globally. Mind you, updating the source will require to move the extensions accordingly..
As for "expected output": be aware that the code in these folders is cached in various ways (mainly page content and config settings), and hence not always run. This is the reason a change done from "outside" the current installation is likely not to propagate to your output without clearing these caches (as you have observed).
When you actually install an extension via the extension manager, the cache should (if correctly configured) be cleared (interested parties may search for clearCacheOnLoad in class.em_index.php to reveal a clear_cacheCmd('all')). There is a small checkbox, which is normally checked, during the installation process to accomplish this.
Omar's first approach is therefore, as I see it, the more easy way to get "expected output" and less jumbling around with global extensions.
I am developing an application in cocoa which needs to copy a set of files to the system folder. When copying files to system folder I am getting a "Permission denied " error message . How can I resolve this problem.
Please any one help me...
Thanks in advance
It shouldn't be necessary to put anything in /System, and it's probably not a good idea anyway, as it could get wiped out by a system update. My guess is that whatever you're looking to do should be possible by some other means, e.g. using /Library or ~/Library.
Mac OS X uses a system of authorization that prevent application to copy files in system locations without warning. That's why you have to enter your credentials when installing a framework for example.
If you want to perform privileged operations in your application, I suggest you to read the Authorization Services Programming Guide and especially the Scenarios chapter: it will help you to decide how to do the file copy.
Use PackageMaker to make a proper Installer package, like I suggested on your previous question.
I have an application to be distributed.
Pretty much everything is self-contained within one bundle so I could just put the bundle in a DMG for the first version-- however this won't work for upgrades, so I figured I'd best work out the process ahead of time.
I've been looking at PackageMaker and it seems straightforward enough. However I have a couple of very specific requirements which may cause problems, and it wasn't apparent from reading the PM docs as to whether this is even possible:
First of all, I want the installer to automatically choose between installing two different versions of the app, depending upon whether a previous version of the application has previously been installed.
Secondly, I don't want to just overwrite the previous application's bundle, I just want the installer to overwrite files within it and add new ones -- in other words, I want certain files within the application bundle to remain from the previous version.
Is this something I could achieve with PackageMaker, or should I look for a different approach?
You can do a lot with an installer package, for example run a shell script which in turn allows you to do everything.
I get the feeling that you're doing it not the Mac way. It's uncommon to store data in the application bundle, normally such stuff goes to ~/Library/Application Support/. I presume that those two different applications are quite similar, why not just set a preference?
Personally, I feel that today a .zip is the best way to distribute your apps. It gets automatically decompressed and shows up with your application icon in the downloads stack. (Only if you get it from the internet, of course.)
For updating look at the sparkle framework. The forst install is just copy the application bundle from the internet and te user then just asks to do update and does not have to leave your application to do anything