encrypting script-only stacks

[Richard Gaskin]

Exactly.  I was hoping the Standalone Builder would do that if you 
choose to include external SoS in the standalone.

What I found instead is that it doesn't being them into the standalone 
stack file as substacks, nor even convert them to binary stack files in 
place.  It just refuses to allow a password to be set.

For apps making rich use of SoS, it would seem tedious to do that 
conversion by hand, or to expect every developer to write the same pair 
of handlers to automate that before and after building the standalone.

How do folks who use SoS frequently protect those SoS scripts?

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems


J. Landman Gay wrote:
> My thought was that you'd use the text files during development and then 
> save them as binary with encryption for the final build.
> 
> --
> Jacqueline Landman Gay | jacque at hyperactivesw.com
> HyperActive Software | http://www.hyperactivesw.com
> On January 14, 2020 11:38:06 AM Kaveh Bazargan via use-livecode 
> <use-livecode at lists.runrev.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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
>> standalone.
>>
>> 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