----- Original Message ----- > From: "Philipp Kewisch" <mozi...@kewis.ch> > To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM > Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing > > On 8/13/14 2:59 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote: > > > > On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote: > >> > >> Does this also affect binary extensions in any way? I'd imagine that > >> globally installed extensions would break signing if placed incorrectly. > > > > You cannot place anything in the Firefox bundle. Any extensions, binary > > or not, would need to be elsewhere. I don't know that we have a > > supported global install location on Mac. > > > > --BDS > > > > When you say not supported, does this mean you have no motivation or > plans to allow extensions formerly dropped in Contents/MacOS/extensions/ > to be placed in a different location that doesn't require resigning? It does not mean that we won't support another location. We are moving as fast as we can to get the minimum requirements finished at this time and it would be helpful if someone tackled the specific issue of supporting another location. First step would be checking if Mac supports a system / global install location for extensions outside of the bundle.
> > I suspect this means enterprise administrators will need to resign if > they want to install Firefox on many machines and provide preinstalled > extensions? Unless there is a system / global install location available. > > On a related matter, has Stephan's suspicion been confirmed that running > the binary manually will not trigger gatekeeper and allow developers to > run the app, with all extensions in > obj/dist/Nightly.app/Contents/MacOS/extensions/ (where they end up with > --enable-extensions) We will be investigating that further after we finish up the minimum requirements. Robert _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
