[digikam] [Bug 496828] New: After installation, launching fails with "The application 'Finder' does not have permission to open “(null).”"
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496828 Bug ID: 496828 Summary: After installation, launching fails with "The application 'Finder' does not have permission to open “(null).”" Classification: Applications Product: digikam Version: 8.5.0 Platform: macOS (DMG) OS: macOS Status: REPORTED Severity: normal Priority: NOR Component: Setup-FirstRun Assignee: digikam-bugs-n...@kde.org Reporter: rcfa+kde@mac.com Target Milestone: --- SUMMARY STEPS TO REPRODUCE 1. download the official macOS installer package digiKam-8.5.0-Qt5-MacOS-x86_64.pkg 2. install it by jumping through the Apple "install unsigned packages" hoops. 3. locate the freshly installed digikam.app and showfoto.app apps in /Applications/digiKam.org 4. double click on either one of them to launch OBSERVED RESULT Instead of the app launching, an alert panel is shown: The application “Finder” does not have permission to open “(null).” EXPECTED RESULT The app launching…. SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS macOS: 15.2 Beta (24C5089c) (intel) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Trying to launch the app manually from the CLI with /Applications/digiKam.org/digikam.app/Contents/MacOS/digikam kind of works, albeit then I get some bogus error message about lack of write permission to ~/Pictures (which in my case is a mount point for a case-sensitive APFS volume, to which I obviously do have write access, as all my other photo apps access it without any issues…), despite the app previously having been given full drive access in Apple’s 'Privacy & Security" settings. I then continued to point the app to ~/Library/Application\ Support/digiKam/ (the last element a folder I created) for the location of the databases, which allowed the app to finally launch. I haven’t been able to use the app yet for anything, but at least I can launch the app from the shell. Even after setup, the app won’t launch by double clicking from the Finder. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[digikam] [Bug 496828] After installation, launching fails with "The application 'Finder' does not have permission to open “(null).”"
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496828 rcfa changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rcfa+kde@mac.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[digikam] [Bug 503112] New: macOS supports universal binaries, this would be preferable to having separate x68_64 and arm64 binaries
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=503112 Bug ID: 503112 Summary: macOS supports universal binaries, this would be preferable to having separate x68_64 and arm64 binaries Classification: Applications Product: digikam Version: unspecified Platform: Compiled Sources OS: macOS Status: REPORTED Severity: wishlist Priority: NOR Component: general Assignee: digikam-bugs-n...@kde.org Reporter: rcfa+kde@mac.com Target Milestone: --- Compiling the product as universal binary would simplify distribution (only one download) and installation/migration in a mixed system setup. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
[digikam] [Bug 496380] Cannot start app under MacOS Intel: The application dock does not have permission to open (null)
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=496380 --- Comment #16 from rcfa --- (In reply to caulier.gilles from comment #15) > If we run the self-signed command directly in the install script from the > package, It will work ? As it's said in the open source Package application > used to create the MacOS installer : > > "Support for bundle pre- and post-installation scripts" > > http://s.sudre.free.fr/Software/Packages/tech_specs.html > > I have a big doubt here, else this Apple signature to force to pay the > notarization will be a non-sense after all as it can be easily by-passed > (:=))) There’s no reason self-sign shouldn’t work in the installer script, it will however that the user authorizes the command. The point of notarization isn’t to "extract money" from anyone, but to make sure that someone is responsible for the code and potentially embedded malware, and that means IDENTIFYING the responsible party, which is obviously a costly process. Besides, the $99/year give you full access to developer resources, pre-releases, etc. So hardly the type of money that makes Apple rich. The point of self-signing is exactly to allow the sort thing done here, but it must be done by an admin user, so it once more requires someone to take responsibility for the signature/installation; and that’s the whole point: there’s always someone to point the finger at, if things go bad. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
