Where should 1.5.1 be built from? I see that trunk currently reports as 1.6hg.
I've made the minimum needed change to the codesign invocation. (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c5ac17ab998d) I've then changed it to signing the whole app bundle, which is what I believe Apple recommends. (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/f8c02c748e9a) Was there a specific reason we were signing just the binary itself? -Evan On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Richie wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Robert Vehse <robert.ve...@freenet.de > (mailto:robert.ve...@freenet.de)> wrote: > > > > Am 07.05.2012 um 21:13 schrieb Evan Schoenberg: > > > > > > > > On May 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Eric Richie <e...@adium.im > > > (mailto:e...@adium.im)> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Evan Schoenberg <e...@adium.im > > > > (mailto:e...@adium.im)> wrote: > > > > > libpurple has been updated to 2.10.4 with 2 security fixes, and I'd > > > > > also like to have us distributing a Developer ID signed binary. > > > > > > > > > > We may need to include some explicit parameters (the designated > > > > > requirement) in the codesign line used in the release script, but I'm > > > > > not positive with our current OS X targeting; we're ok on 10.7 > > > > > without but 10.6.8 may need > > > > > it to behave properly. > > > > > > > > > > Any objections to a beta in the next couple days? > > > > > > > > > > -Evan > > > > > > > > Nope. Let's do it. > > > > > > > > Are you going to be looking into the parameters? > > > > > > Yup. I'll take care of it. > > > > > > -Evan > > > > Is http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c494bae9da94 a good point to branch from? > > > That looks to be about as good a place as any. > > -Eric
