On Mar 23, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Mark Bestley <news@bestley.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/03/2013 18:49, phil@highoctane.be wrote:
It is good for making OSX apps. For the rest, yeah, it is an alien creature.
And even for OSX it is not well behaved - no program should write to its own app bundle, this has been true since the OS started as NextStep in 1989. All the Application bundle should be assume=d to be in a read only state possibly on a read only drive, On reason is to allow multiple users to use the same Application without overwriting each others work. . In 10.8 and with various setups (see Gatekeeper) the applications are signed to make sure no virus or anything else alter them, I note that Pharo is not signed and so I have to disable signed checks for all applications on OSX.
For OSX what should probably happen is that the image is saved to ~/Library/Application Support, either by a stub program copying the image from the app bundle on first startup or by altering the save method
Yes, this is why we are going away from the One-Click concept. The idea is that you install "Pharo2" or "Pharo3" or "Pharo4" on you system, like any Application. This means for windows, there will be an installer, for Mac it might be in the App Store even. This Pharo Application is the VM and *read only* image. When you start Pharo it will open this image and ask you to save it to your home dir. This will take some time until we reach there, though. (There are some details that I omitted⦠I should write a document for what is planed exactly)
Where is this just working download the pharo page <http://www.pharo-project.org/home> still has the one click image.
Yes, we released 2.0 on Monday. On Tuesday we made a first step into the future direction of how Pharo will be distributed. As 2.0 is released, this is for the next development phase (Pharo3): http://www.pharo-project.org/pharo-download/alpha-3-0 We might back=port it, but keep in mind that our resources are limited and we need to carefully assess where to spend time. Marcus