Export tool

[gorangrooves]

@d-healey hmmm Does a solution like that already exist for WooCommerce? Or would this be done outside of it, independently?

[d.healey]

@gorangrooves

Perhaps this - https://woocommerce.com/products/software-add-on/

I think I might use this myself actually, looks simpler than my original idea...

[gorangrooves]

@d-healey said in Export tool:

@gorangrooves

Perhaps this - https://woocommerce.com/products/software-add-on/

I think I might use this myself actually, looks simpler than my original idea...

I think that this is something completely different. Opens yet another can of worms It doesn't seem to solve anything new.

[Natan]

Just Migrate To Sellfy.com And Get The Whole Features For:

Limiting Downloads Per-Customer.
Generating Unique Download Links Per-Customer.
Tracking The IP To Avoid Spams And Frauds With Paypal.
And Yep, It Has Custom Domain Linking And Saves You Lot Of Time.

Note: Sellfy Will Automatically Do The Above Options Automatically, So No more Headache And Also Extra Charge For Your Storage Needs,
You Can Offer Big Files As Free, And Just Pay The Monthly Plan's Price, No Mattet How Many Downlaods Come On Your Way :) Good Enough?

Thank Me Later

[Casey Kolb]

@gorangrooves Yup a serial license solution exists for Woocommerce and I've already hooked this up in HISE with my server. Use this license manager https://www.licensemanager.at/. It's free and better than all of the other paid ones by far.

[d.healey]

@Lunacy-Audio Looks like a good solution, thanks!

[gorangrooves]

@Natanr Sorry buddy, but that's not an improvement over woocommerce, which also offers those features, plus it is customizable and there are tons of add-ons for it.

[gorangrooves]

I have broken down what I believe will be a good user experience for plugin delivery:
https://forum.hise.audio/topic/3069/what-format-do-you-use-to-distribute-plugins-samples/8#

[d.healey]

Well it looks like automated installer building on OSX is out (for now). There doesn't seem to be a tool available to generate Packages project files. The pkgproj format is xml so I could generate it manually but I'm not familiar enough with its layout and I don't have the time/patience at the moment to decipher it.

Searching whitebox packages on github just brings up HISE :p

[DanH]

@d-healey *sob

[Christoph Hart]

@d-healey said in Export tool:

There doesn't seem to be a tool available to generate Packages

I have created one Package template for PercX and Hexeract and then I just need to do a search and replace, that can be automated...

[d.healey]

@Christoph-Hart Ooo that's the approach I use too (based on your template). I didn't think about automated find/replace, I'll look into it!

[d.healey]

I think I've found a snag with the copy/replace idea, it's only going to work if the user is generating an AU, VST, and standalone app. If one of those is missing or they want to bundle additional items I'd still need a way to generate the extra contents of the pkgproj. Any ideas?

[Lindon]

@d-healey why not build 2 different packages - one including stand alone one missing it and use(search and replace) either depending on the user selection..

[d.healey]

@Lindon I'm not sure how that would solve the problem, could you provide more info about your idea? Here is an example of the template project Christoph and I mentioned.

While we're discussing Apple stuff, do you let XCode handle the code-signing as it's compiling your project or do you do it through the commandline manually after compiling is complete?

[Lindon]

@d-healey ok so the thing you are pointing at is an xml file generated by whitebox packages yes?

So its for a package that includes VST3, AU and standalone yes?

Simply create another whitebox package - this time with only the VST and AU elements and export(save) its XML

Now you have two templates - one for VST,AU and Stand-alone, and one for VST and AU. Offer your user a choice:

Include stand-alone? Y/N and depending on their choice use the relevant template.

So on to Apple Stuff:
I manually codesign all my plugins... and stand alones.
Then I manually notarise my stand-alones.

--I wait for apples success email then...

I use Whitebox packages for packaging - but its set up to use my developer certificate so its codesigned as soon as it builds.
When its built I notarize it.

-- I wait for apples success email then...

I staple the package, and zip it up - done!

To be honest Im not sure how you'd get all of that done with an automated process...I can see how you'd do it up to building the package ...but waiting for the success emails?

[d.healey]

@Lindon Oh I get it, I'll need more than two templates to cover all combinations but yeah that seems like a workable solution.

I didn't think you needed to notarize the standalone if it was included in a notarized package? - At least that's what I saw in the KVR post.

Yeah the stapling part with the success email would still have to be done manually, unless Apple provides some sort of API that gives a notification (I'll check).

Hmm which of these do we need (I assume just the bottom one, do we need to codesign the installer before notarization?):

[Lindon]

@d-healey yep the bottom one - I think- hang on checking my white box.....

it tells me this; Developer ID Installer: Lindon Mulcahy-Parker (XXXXXXXXXXX).

so I think thats the second to bottom one...??

My reading and re-reading of the KVR threads is that -

if it runs on its own it needs to be notarised, so stand-alone apps and packages.

[d.healey]

@Lindon Can you use the Developer ID Installer for codesigning apps as well as installers?

This is what I saw on KVR:

discoDSP wrote: ↑Sun Oct 20, 2019 10:04 am
Does notarization apply to a .app contained on a .pkg?
Yep. From my previous post:
The notary service generates a ticket for the top-level file that you specify, as well as each nested file. For example, if you submit a disk image that contains a signed installer package with an app bundle inside, the notarization service generates tickets for the disk image, installer package, and app bundle.

[d.healey]

I'm having second thoughts about whitebox packages. Seems there are other tools available that have a commandline interface which would be much more reliable. One problem with the template method is it limits the combination of files to the templates I create. Suppose someone wants to create a set of plugins and standalone app that has IPP and another that doesn't, then I need to double my available templates. Then they might also want debug builds for sending out to testers, there's another set of templates. They might also want to include multiple versions in the same installer for some crazy reason. If the commandline tools turn out not to be viable then I'll resort to the template method, so either way we will have installer creation on MacOS.