This sounds strange; in order to refer to files outside your bundle with a <i>relative</i> path, you would have to be using something like "../../../SomewhereElse/filename.xyz", which is utterly fragile to begin with.<p>I can only assume that this was used to find other applications. Still a fragile dependency; for example, sometimes I put things in "/Applications/Utilities" but sometimes I put them in "/Applications", which means there is no single parent directory that is guaranteed to hold everything. And even if that weren’t the case, the OS has always let you run applications from anywhere you want.<p>Therefore, it has always been possible for apps to break when doing this, and they were just <i>lucky</i> if they ran on a system where it worked. It sounds like in Sierra it will just be much more likely to break.
> <i>The problem with Gatekeeper Path Randomization is that copying applications to a read-only disk image will break functionality in many, if not most, existing applications.</i><p>This is extremely hyperbolic. I'd say it could break functionality in a small number of apps (that don't support running from read-only media, which is definitely a problem with the app and not a problem with the system). I doubt it's a lot, and it's sure as hell not "most".
This just goes to show that Apple <i>really</i> needs to solve their app installation problem.<p>I remember a time when "just move the app into the Applications folder" seemed really simple. Like Apple, I thought it was a fine idea.<p>We were wrong. Having to move the application in Applications turns out to be absolutely <i>baffling</i> to most users. (Including many people I am fond of, e.g. my dad.)<p>A lot of apps now offer to move themselves when first launched from the Dowloads or Desktop folder; the OS should handle this.<p>GPR itself still seems janky, but this would help (since apps in Applications don't get GPR'd).
The main concern is that software updaters will not be able to easily replace an app bundle if it is translocated to a readonly mount. The user will have to move the app somewhere else first.<p>Apple wants developers to use dmgs (and signed ones particularly) but updaters don't have an easy time with apps being launched from those either, and people don't think dmgs provide a good user experience as well.
After reading this post, I still don't understand what the problem is. Are Mac developers writing apps that modify files stored inside the app bundle? If so, isn't this considered a dangerous practice?