[mailto:rstr...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:07 AM
To: dev-platform
Subject: RE: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing.
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak
branch
[mailto:rstr...@mozilla.com]
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 2:07 AM
To: dev-platform
Subject: RE: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing.
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak
branch.
This will allow us
Robert Strong wrote on 09/22/2014 11:07 AM:
Hi Robert,
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak branch.
This will allow us to test installing and updating before landing on
mozilla-central.
[..]
If no serious issues are found we are hoping to be able to land on
Quick status update on the progress for Mac v2 signing.
All of the major changes for Mac v2 signing have landed on the Oak branch.
This will allow us to test installing and updating before landing on
mozilla-central.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1046906
On 8/28/14, 1:04 AM, Dave Townsend wrote:
If my reading of the patches are correct then the extension manager will
start looking in the new location in the app bundle for extensions
(Contents/Resources/browser/extensions) automatically. We'll have to
support this as that is where the default
On 8/13/14 2:59 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
Does this also affect binary extensions in any way? I'd imagine that
globally installed extensions would break signing if placed incorrectly.
You cannot place anything in the Firefox bundle. Any
- Original Message -
From: Philipp Kewisch mozi...@kewis.ch
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM
Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
On 8/13/14 2:59 PM, Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp
On 8/27/14, 8:16 PM, Boris Zbarsky wrote:
On 8/12/14, 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote:
Without any changes, future versions of Firefox will cease to function
out-of-the-box on OS X 10.9.5 and 10.10.
Will it still be possible to run old nightlies, presumably by changing
something in system
On 8/12/14, 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum wrote:
Without any changes, future versions of Firefox will cease to function
out-of-the-box on OS X 10.9.5 and 10.10.
Will it still be possible to run old nightlies, presumably by changing
something in system settings?
-Boris
Strong
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 5:16 PM
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
- Original Message -
From: Philipp Kewisch mozi...@kewis.ch
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Robert Strong rstr...@mozilla.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Philipp Kewisch mozi...@kewis.ch
To: dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:49:35 PM
Subject: Re: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
On 8/14/14, 5:02 AM, Neil wrote:
Benjamin Smedberg wrote:
On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
Does this also affect binary extensions in any way? I'd imagine that
globally installed extensions would break signing if placed
incorrectly.
You cannot place anything in the Firefox
On 8/13/2014 3:34 AM, Philipp Kewisch wrote:
Does this also affect binary extensions in any way? I'd imagine that
globally installed extensions would break signing if placed incorrectly.
You cannot place anything in the Firefox bundle. Any extensions, binary
or not, would need to be
On 14-08-12 08:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Ben Hearsum wrote:
Apple recently announced changes to how OS X applications must be
packaged and signed
Does this also apply if you run .app/Contents/MacOS/firefox binary
manually rather than opening the .app?
I'm not sure about that. I also
One thing to test heavily would be background updates which rely somewhat
on the structure of these files abd directories...
Cheers,
Ehsan
On Aug 12, 2014 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum bhear...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi all,
Apple recently announced changes to how OS X applications must be packaged
and
Ben Hearsum wrote:
Apple recently announced changes to how OS X applications must be packaged and
signed
Does this also apply if you run .app/Contents/MacOS/firefox binary
manually rather than opening the .app?
If developers do update their OS to 10.9.5 when it's released, is there
a way
: Upcoming changes to Mac package layout, signing
One thing to test heavily would be background updates which rely somewhat
on the structure of these files abd directories...
Cheers,
Ehsan
On Aug 12, 2014 1:05 PM, Ben Hearsum bhear...@mozilla.com wrote:
Hi all,
Apple recently announced changes
On 8/12/14, 8:46 PM, Cameron McCormack wrote:
Ben Hearsum wrote:
Apple recently announced changes to how OS X applications must be
packaged and signed
Does this also apply if you run .app/Contents/MacOS/firefox binary
manually rather than opening the .app?
As best as I can tell, no. You
18 matches
Mail list logo
