kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Andy Peters <devel@xxxxxxxxx>]

> On Oct 6, 2015, at 7:14 AM, Adam Wolf <adamwolf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi folks!
> 
> OS X has this thing called Gatekeeper.  Applications that are downloaded off the internet fall under its "protection".  Systems have 3 settings for Gatekeeper:
> 
> 1) Only allow applications distributed through the Mac App Store
> 2) Mac Store + Developer signed applications
> 3) Let anything run
> 
> It is certainly beyond scope to distribute KiCad builds through the Mac App Store in the near future.  It is not necessarily beyond scope for me to set up package signing.  The main benefit we get is that users will no longer have to right click on KiCad the first time they open it in order to run the unsigned application, and our application appears a little more professional.
>  
> Assuming the core team doesn't have philosophical objections to this, there are some organizational aspects.
> 
> The application needs to be signed by a key we'd get from Apple.  There is likely a $99/yr fee per *developer account* for this.  We already have one at Wayne and Layne.  If we used ours to sign the KiCad builds, there would likely be a place where you'd be able to see our name on the builds, but we could probably get this going in a few days.
> 
> Alternatively, we could get another developer account just for KiCad.  Wayne and Layne can cover the yearly fee.  The application process was actually kinda lengthy and involved some phone calls, but we can definitely do it.
> 
> I haven't worked with this stuff intimately, actually, so the next step might be to:
> 
> 1) confirm with the core team that this might be reasonable
> 2) I look into it more
> 
> Thoughts?

I think the application needs to be signed, if only to prevent people from clogging the user and developer mailing lists with “OS X WON’T LET ME RUN KICAD!” complaints.

I have an Apple developer account and I pay the $99 yearly fee. I should see what is involved with signing an app.

-a