> On 13 Nov 2020, at 11:42, Ed Merks <ed.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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... > Notarising is important, sure :) Notarisation happens at an app level though rather than DMG as far as macOS is concerned.
However, it may be that the Eclipse build process does the notarisation step as part of building the DMG, so it could be hat the .tar.gz isn’t notarized while the content of the dmg is. I can verify this and confirm. > 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. > I’m happy to get rid of the .tar.gz so it’s not something that I was asking EPP to provide directly. This thread was arguing for the publishing of the .tar.gz links which are apparently being built still using EPP. I am personally happy with the idea of only building the .dmg; others on this thread have a different opinion. > 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… There are a couple of people on this thread who have. Provably there’s no benefit of using .tar.gz (other than personal preference) so I agree that it’s a big picture issue, and I wasn’t trying to fight or revert that. All I was saying in https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=568788 <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=568788> was that if we are continuing to produce the gzipp’d tar files, then we should use the .tgz extension instead of .tar.gz. If we’re not producing the targz files then feel free to close as wontfix :) Alex
_______________________________________________ platform-dev mailing list platform-dev@eclipse.org To unsubscribe from this list, visit https://www.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/platform-dev
