encrypting script-only stacks

[Richard Gaskin]

Sure, and with the extra benefit that you wouldn't have to expose your 
code to end-users.

That is, unless there's a way to include SoS in a standalone that 
includes encryption, such as an automated method in the Standalone Builder.

I couldn't find one, but it seems like such a pervasive issue for the 
class of devs most likely to use SoS (pros dependent on VCS) that I'm 
hoping I just missed something.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems


Jacque wrote:

 > Wouldn't a binary script-only stack be the library stack we already
 > have now?
 > --
 > Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
 >
 > On January 14, 2020 9:55:01 AM Richard Gaskin wrote:
 >
 >> Since script-only stacks contain only a script with no properties,
 >> they have no password property, and thus cannot be encrypted.
 >>
 >> I had thought that including them in the Stacks pane of the
 >> Standalone Builder might convert them to binary substacks, where
 >> the password could apply.  No dice.
 >>
 >> Is it a bug that script-only stacks can't be imported into the
 >> stackfile to become binary substacks?
 >>
 >> --
 >>  Richard Gaskin
 >>  Fourth World Systems