encrypting script-only stacks
kaveh at rivervalleytechnologies.com
Tue Jan 14 12:36:01 EST 2020
The benefits of SoS are so important that I would hate to have to go back
to binary again. Nothing like having pure text files to version, back up
etc. so I am also hoping for an elegant solution to encode these in
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 17:31, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode <
use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 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
> use-livecode mailing list
> use-livecode at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
> subscription preferences:
Kaveh Bazargan PhD
River Valley Technologies <http://rivervalleytechnologies.com/> • Twitter
<https://twitter.com/kaveh1000> • LinkedIn
More information about the use-livecode