Re: [Fink-devel] help needed testing replacement fink 0.4.1 binaryinstaller

2002-11-05 Thread Martin Costabel
David R. Morrison wrote: [] Martin, were you "root" when you created this? Or else how did you get everything to be owned by root in the .pax.gz file? That is perhaps an important step when creating future binary installers... Yes. I had tried a "sudo chown -R root.admin", but then PackageMa

Re: [Fink-devel] help needed testing replacement fink 0.4.1 binaryinstaller

2002-10-31 Thread Martin Costabel
David R. Morrison wrote: Maybe somebody else can make a new 0.4.1 installer? I'll be happy to talk you through the process... In case this is still needed, I made one. It looks OK to me, but since I had never touched PackageMaker before, it would be necessary that someone else tested it. It

Re: [Fink-devel] help needed testing replacement fink 0.4.1 binaryinstaller

2002-10-30 Thread Martin Costabel
David R. Morrison wrote: [] What my "fix" does is to alter the .pax.gz file with the contents of the installation so that the permission on "." is 1755 in the directory instead of 0700. What did you do with the bom file? Not only does it still contain the permissions 700 for ".", but lsbom cr