Re: [Gimp-developer] Participation at Apple Developer Program

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:21:31 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote:

On 27 Mar 2018, at 03:25, Jehan Pagès <jehan marmottard gmail com> wrote:

But right now, we are discussing paying to distribute a version of GIMP
which is barely kept alive. This is a bit doing things in the wrong order

In fact, I think this is the main point. Even in the case we do decide to pay for an account, we need to 
incorporate this into our build system. And I consider it more important to first get regular 2.10 builds 
off the ground than to produce signed binaries.

[I am near having a script that completely automates the build and DMG creation. I wanted to have 2.10 DMGs 
available already, but unfortunately due to some family related events early this year I had to stall his 
work for a while. It is my intention to pick it up again now].

I voted “I don’t care”, because manually enabling the binary is in my opinion a minor nuisance to some of 
the other issues that need fixing. Also I don’t need this feature myself, but if the community wants to see 
this fixed I can look into it.

Just a note about this -- in the Mac world, signed binaries are
perceived to be a security issue.  We (Gutenprint) had always planned
to sign our binaries after this came out, but it took us some time to
get the details right even with an experienced Mac person on the team
and we got a lot of complaints from our Mac users until we got it all
set up.
Robert Krawitz                                     <rlk alum mit edu>

***  MIT Engineers   A Proud Tradition  ***
Member of the League for Programming Freedom  --
Project lead for Gutenprint   --

"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
--Eric Crampton

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]