To DMG or not to DMG?

[gorangrooves]

Is there a point in packaging the notarized .pkg bundle inside a .dmg for Mac distribution?

That's what is suggested by JUCE for plugin distribution, but I don't see a clear benefit or need.

What are your thoughts and approach with this?

[d.healey]

I use .pkg

[orange]

@gorangrooves With .dmg file, users must copy paste the plugins manually, it doesn't look pro, IMHO.

With .pkg it's done automatically. Besides, with .pkg you can run special bash scripts for pre / post-installation process, this feature can be used for the installation of Expansions, MarkDown Files...etc.

I use .pkg too.

[gorangrooves]

@orange Totally. I made installers with pkg too. What I am wondering is if there is a reason to place the pkg file inside a dmg file for distribution as suggested by JUCE?

[DanH]

@gorangrooves I think of it as a mac friendly zip file. You can open and see what's inside, but you still have to run a .pkg from it... (I believe...)

[orange]

@gorangrooves I use zipped pkg files, it works for me. I don't see any reason to put the pkg file inside the dmg actually.