alt Hacker NewsWhy not .pkg (next, next, installer)? For the past week, I've been tweaking my startup's CLI to install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing, and everything that goes along with that. I've often wondered why so many companies opt for the icon method.
Replies
I like drag&drop way more than .pkg. just easier to deal with. If you do a CLI tool then maybe `brew install CLI` is the way to go instead of a pkg file?
Inertia? It's the standardized method on macOS. Macs have been this way at least since early 90s. InstallShield likewise had been normal on Windows since early 90s, so the modern MSI installers feel more normal and straightforward to Windows users.
> install as a .pkg, satisfy Apple signing
Keep in mind that a package installer becomes obsolete and nonfunctional when the code signing certificate expires, unlike an app.
It's annoying to click through.
[dead]
As a user I don’t like installer packages as much because without special utilities, they’re opaque and it’s hard to tell what they’ll do.
Of course copied binaries can cause plenty of trouble too, but I have much less of a reason to give an installed program admin privileges than I do an installer.