You can use a variant of these instructions: http://sites.music.columbia.edu/brad/osx-windows-new-RTcmixes/annoying.html
to get around the STUPID ANNOYING STUPID OBNXIOUS Apple gatekeeper code-signing thing. brad On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 8:51 AM João Pais <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi list, > > I'm preparing a package based on Pd work, but I run into annoying problems > with recent apple OSs, namely notarization and security. Things seem to > work if the user commits to switching off all security protocols, but for > people who don't know Pd, they might be squeamish about this. Therefore I > wanted to ask a couple of questions to someone who might have experience in > distributing pd-based patches. > > For clarity: the package is a max patch (for both runtime and standalone > versions), with the Pd app and patches included in a supporting folder - > running with the recent pd~ object. When done properly, the user won't even > be aware that pd itself is running. > > - how can one avoid asking a user to allow safety access to Pd and its > externals? And while at that, to the max standalone as well? > - I'm myself a windows user, and don't have a mac - I can only get the > standalone compiled when a friend grants me access to his computer. Which > system do you advise to prepare a package? It works fine in 10.13, from > 10.15 seems to be problematic. > - I had a look at codesigning a package, but it seems that it's necessary > to sign up as an apple developer and pay 100us a year, which I'm not > willing to do. The package won't be going to any app store, it's just to > distribute as a zip file for computers. Any way to circumvent this? > > Best, > > jmmmp > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
