B badsandwich macrumors member Original poster Feb 9, 2010 #1 Is there any reason why I shouldn't distribute a .pkg file as is (i.e. without zipping it up or putting it inside a dmg first)? Thanks!
Is there any reason why I shouldn't distribute a .pkg file as is (i.e. without zipping it up or putting it inside a dmg first)? Thanks!
Cromulent macrumors 604 Feb 9, 2010 #2 Size. Not compressing your installer wastes bandwidth for both yourself and your users.
Sydde macrumors 68030 Feb 9, 2010 #3 Older .pkg's were actually bundles (folders disguised as files), so they were always archived for distribution.
Older .pkg's were actually bundles (folders disguised as files), so they were always archived for distribution.
B badsandwich macrumors member Original poster Feb 9, 2010 #4 Cromulent said: Size. Not compressing your installer wastes bandwidth for both yourself and your users. Click to expand... but pkg files are compressed..?
Cromulent said: Size. Not compressing your installer wastes bandwidth for both yourself and your users. Click to expand... but pkg files are compressed..?
Sydde macrumors 68030 Feb 9, 2010 #5 badsandwich said: but pkg files are compressed..? Click to expand... They do in fact appear to be compressed. pkg files are XAR archives that do not compress much if at all (using BetterZip to test).
badsandwich said: but pkg files are compressed..? Click to expand... They do in fact appear to be compressed. pkg files are XAR archives that do not compress much if at all (using BetterZip to test).
B badsandwich macrumors member Original poster Feb 11, 2010 #6 Argh. Just learned (the hard way) another reason not to do this: it seems that if the pkg file gets corrupted you don't necessarily know it until after you try installing it...
Argh. Just learned (the hard way) another reason not to do this: it seems that if the pkg file gets corrupted you don't necessarily know it until after you try installing it...