Encrypted standalones

[Richard Gaskin]

J. Landman Gay wrote:

 > I take that back. If I turn Android builds back on, close Standalone
 > Settings, and re-open it, the password is gone. So, we can't protect
 > Android mainstacks?
 >
 > Android apps can be distributed through private web sites, and without
 > any encryption they would be easier to hack. I understand that I can
 > set the password manually, but it's much easier not to worry about it
 > during development and still be assurred it will be set on a build.
 >
 > If there's a reason we can't do that, okay. If there isn't a reason,
 > I'll put in a request for it.

It may be that the password isn't being set, or it may be a UI bug in 
which the password is set but just isn't being displayed.

You can determine which is the case with a quick test build that does 
something like:

    answer line 10 of the script of this stack

If the standalone can get the script, it's not encrypted it.  If it 
complains, you're fine and it's just a UI bug.

Either way, once the nature of the problem is determined a bug report 
would be helpful.  It may be that some of the recent work on the 
Standalone Builder caused this regression, and reporting it while it's 
fresh in the team member's head will likely yield a quick fix.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com