OS9 Standalone

[Mark Schonewille]

Hi Jacque,

Just to add to my previous message, I created a few standalones with  
4.0 and no matter what I try, there are always one or more embedded  
stacks in 2.7 format. I'm not completely sure, however, that these  
stacks are my password-protected stacks, because I noticed that stacks  
may be embedded in both 2.4 and 2.7 format. I haven't got the time to  
figure it all out.

--
Best regards,

Mark Schonewille

Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
http://economy-x-talk.com

Submit your software at http://www.quickestpublisher.com

On 28 sep 2009, at 14:00, Mark Schonewille wrote:

> Hi Jacque,
>
> Unfortunately, you are partly wrong (but fortunately you may also be  
> partly right). If you create a standalone with a password-protected  
> stack in 2.4 format, Revolution will convert it to 2.7 format. This  
> means that a password-protected standalone created with Rev 4 will  
> never run on Mac OS 9.
>
> To answer OP's question, I was unable to get any standalone created  
> in Mac OS X with Rev 2.7* or later working in Mac OS 9. There may be  
> several reasons for this. I might be using commands and functions  
> that are unavalable in the 2.6 engine, or my hard disk is formatted  
> such that the file system can't deal with classic resource forks, or  
> the new standalone builder forgets to add (parts of) the resource  
> fork.
>
> Whenever I have to create a standalone for Mac OS 9, I fire up my  
> old PowerMac, edit the stack in Rev 2.6.1, and build the standalone  
> inside the environment it is supposed to run in.
>
> *) I write 2.7 for my own convenience. The OS9 option isn't always  
> available.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Mark Schonewille
>
> Economy-x-Talk Consulting and Software Engineering
> http://economy-x-talk.com
>
> Submit your software at http://www.quickestpublisher.com
>
> On 24 sep 2009, at 03:22, J. Landman Gay wrote:
>
>> DunbarX at aol.com wrote:
>>> All:
>>> The 3.5 docs do say that the 2.6.1 classic engine is used to make  
>>> the standalone, and that one should watch out for included v.3-4  
>>> functionality that might break in that earlier version; that the  
>>> newer code may not compile in the 2.6 engine. Makes sense.
>>> Otherwise, except for that caveat, it seems like OS 9 is supported  
>>> in v.3.5; it does after all create a fat standalone.
>>
>> The file format changed in Rev 2.7. If you want to build an OS 9  
>> standalone using Rev 3.5, you need to save the stack in legacy  
>> format (there's an option in the Save dialog for that.) If you  
>> don't, the 2.6.1 engine can't read the 2.7 file format, which I  
>> think is why your original standalone wouldn't launch.