On 2019-4-14 01:12 , Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 08:47, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2019-4-13 07:57 , Jack Howarth wrote:
>>> What will be the situation with 10.14.5 and its enforcement of
>>> notarization for Applications and kernel extensions for MacPorts? In
>>> pa
Comments inline again.
Saagar Jha
> On Apr 13, 2019, at 22:54, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> Can you please reply to the list or is there a good reason not to?
Thanks for the reminder, I’ve re-CC’d macports-dev.
> I'm not saying we should notarize the apps because we have to, but it would
> not
MacPorts actually does sign some apps: for example, HexFiend seems to be ad-hoc
signed as a result of the Xcode build process. I don’t think GateKeeper
actually comes into play here because the resulting binary never has the
com.apple.quarantine xattr set. I do run with SIP and GateKeeper disabl
Hi,
On Sat, 13 Apr 2019 at 08:47, Joshua Root wrote:
> On 2019-4-13 07:57 , Jack Howarth wrote:
> > What will be the situation with 10.14.5 and its enforcement of
> > notarization for Applications and kernel extensions for MacPorts? In
> > particular, will the new notarization requirement li
On 2019-4-13 07:57 , Jack Howarth wrote:
> What will be the situation with 10.14.5 and its enforcement of
> notarization for Applications and kernel extensions for MacPorts? In
> particular, will the new notarization requirement limit users to the
> MacPorts build machine copies of such packag
What will be the situation with 10.14.5 and its enforcement of
notarization for Applications and kernel extensions for MacPorts? In
particular, will the new notarization requirement limit users to the
MacPorts build machine copies of such packages which have applications
rather than being able
