Stefan Monnier:
>> I think, Apple has made their stance quite clear by releasing the
>> command line dev tools:
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by that, but looking at the history of Apple
> devices, especially the recent history with iPad, iPhone, etc... it's
> pretty clear to me where this is hea
Manuel,
Thanks for the references and follow up. I had seen Kennith's posts
about the new command line tools for XCode, but didn't seen John
Gruber's take! Much appreciated.
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 2:52 AM, Manuel M T Chakravarty
wrote:
> Austin Seipp:
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Tom Mur
> I think, Apple has made their stance quite clear by releasing the
> command line dev tools:
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but looking at the history of Apple
devices, especially the recent history with iPad, iPhone, etc... it's
pretty clear to me where this is headed: keep as tight a contr
On 2/20/12 4:31 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 20/02/2012, at 5:53 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
Bzuh?
Since you are running Lion and I am not, it isn't _that_ surprising that we
see different things. It remains surprising that in 10.6.8 the xattr
command is there but its manual page is not.
Th
On 2/19/12 10:44 PM, Jack Henahan wrote:
(or any other method which applies the quarantine flag)
And you can always use xattr in order to delete that flag, if need be.
--
Live well,
~wren
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http:/
Austin Seipp:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
>> On the other hand,
>> it's impossible for a software company to maintain a sense of
>> professionalism, when a user has to know a weird "secret handshake" to
>> disable what they may perceive as equivalent to antivirus software.
Austin Seipp:
> The only two things not clear at this point, at least to me, are:
>
> 1) Will Apple require the paid development program, as opposed to the
> free one, if you only want to self-sign applications with a cert they
> trust?
You can self-sign applications with a certificate that you g
On 20/02/2012, at 5:53 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 23:27, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> Now *that's* annoying. It turns out that the xattr command is *there*,
> but 'man xattr' is completely silent. There is nothing for it in
> /usr/share/man/man1 . I had been using my own
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 23:27, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
> Now *that's* annoying. It turns out that the xattr command is *there*,
> but 'man xattr' is completely silent. There is nothing for it in
> /usr/share/man/man1 . I had been using my own command to do the
> equivalent of xattr -d.
Bzuh?
On 20/02/2012, at 3:04 PM, Jack Henahan wrote:
>
> What's your setup like that you can't even use gdb in your own directory?
> That sounds unusual. And you can turn off the warning, either globally or
> selectively.[3][4]
My setup is Mac OS X 10.6.8, pretty much out of the box, plus a bunch of
In fact, since Gatekeeper, by design, can only quarantine applications acquired
through the App Store or a download (or any other method which applies the
quarantine flag), it may be entirely irrelevant for you depending on how you
distribute. Applications on physical media are exempt, source bu
As has been mentioned, it's already possible to override Gatekeeper on a
per-app basis, and what I've seen so far is that it operates just as the
download warning: once you get past the first check, it never bothers you
again. Is it unreasonable for your users to open it that way once? As for
s
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:39 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
> On the other hand,
> it's impossible for a software company to maintain a sense of
> professionalism, when a user has to know a weird "secret handshake" to
> disable what they may perceive as equivalent to antivirus software.
I'll also just add
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
> Actually, what I was more concerned about was the ability to
> distribute a "full" Mac application, with a GUI, made with a method
> other than calling Haskell from Objective-C.
> It seems that *none* of these applications will be usable
> *Short* term, the most that will happen is that people will have to
> say "yeah yeah I know just let me have it OK?".
>
> Already in 10.6 there was this nagging feature where you click on a
> downloaded document and it says "this was downloaded, do you really
> want to open it" and it takes a pai
On 2/19/12, Austin Seipp wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
>> 0) Distributing non-Cocoa-built apps, even if you're approved by Apple
>
> Do you just mean binaries that you expect users run under
> /usr/local/bin or something, not app bundles? If that's the case, I
> cann
Well, the command-line tools are now available as a standalone package[1]
separate from Xcode[2], so Apple's taken notice of and responded positively to
large efforts like Homebrew and MacRuby. With that in mind, I don't think it's
unreasonable to think this support also applies to other users o
On 20/02/2012, at 1:01 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
> Does anyone know what this will mean for the future of Haskell
> development in OS X?:
>
> http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html
Quoting that document:
Or you can install all apps from anywhere,
just as you can tod
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:01 PM, Tom Murphy wrote:
> 0) Distributing non-Cocoa-built apps, even if you're approved by Apple
Do you just mean binaries that you expect users run under
/usr/local/bin or something, not app bundles? If that's the case, I
cannot say if the same restrictions will apply.
Does anyone know what this will mean for the future of Haskell
development in OS X?:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/mountain-lion/security.html
I'm particularly interested in what it'll mean for
0) Distributing non-Cocoa-built apps, even if you're approved by Apple
1) Writing software for widespr
20 matches
Mail list logo
