<div dir="ltr">I think putting a 'validated' pd in the app store is a great idea, for both pd-vanilla and pd-extended. Just alot of work.<div><br></div><div style>I believe, but am not certain, that dlopen will continue to work as long as you play the 'app sandbox' game: if a user wants to load binaries from a different location in a sandboxed app, they need to give permission. Here are the juicy details:</div>
<div style><br></div><div style><a href="http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/AppSandboxInDepth/AppSandboxInDepth.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011183-CH3-SW5">http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/Security/Conceptual/AppSandboxDesignGuide/AppSandboxInDepth/AppSandboxInDepth.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40011183-CH3-SW5</a><br>
</div><div style><br></div><div style>of importance in there is 'Securty-Scoped Bookmarks'.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Note this isn't just Mac, you have to jump through the same hoops for WinRT, which hasn't really caught on yet, but its a sign that the trend nowadays is for a rediculously high level of securty, by default.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Jonathan Wilkes <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jancsika@yahoo.com" target="_blank">jancsika@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
----- Original Message -----<br>
> From: Miller Puckette <<a href="mailto:msp@ucsd.edu">msp@ucsd.edu</a>><br>
> To: Jonathan Wilkes <<a href="mailto:jancsika@yahoo.com">jancsika@yahoo.com</a>><br>
</div><div class="im">> Cc: "<a href="mailto:pd-dev@iem.at">pd-dev@iem.at</a>" <<a href="mailto:pd-dev@iem.at">pd-dev@iem.at</a>><br>
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:12 PM<br>
> Subject: Re: [PD-dev] Mac Os now requiring Apple signatures on all SW !?<br>
><br>
</div>>T hat sounds sensible... sounds like I can probably do nothing for now (but<br>
<div class="im">> I'm worried they're going to progressively lock things down harder in<br>
> the<br>
> future... this isn't going in a good direction!)<br>
<br>
</div>Well, if they decide to remove the easy workaround that would be a big<br>
enough change that we'll likely hear news from FSF and others.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-Jonathan<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> M<br>
><br>
>> Again, that adds credibility to a system that adds little more than a pain<br>
> for<br>
>> users, and it distracts everyone other than bureaucrats. Most users just<br>
> want to<br>
>> download and run your software.<br>
>><br>
>> If a school sysadmin wants to misunderstand security and force instructors<br>
> to<br>
>> go through the hoops, then the school or, at worst, the instructor should<br>
> pay you<br>
>> to jump through the hoops and get a signing key. The end user<br>
> shouldn't even be<br>
>> aware of any of this, other than maybe seeing a link to the _trivial_<br>
> workaround<br>
>> katja mentioned next to the version you currently have available.<br>
>><br>
>> -Jonathan<br>
>><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Pd-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Pd-dev@iem.at">Pd-dev@iem.at</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>