Jon, have you been able to isolate the difference between the two executables?OK - so I went back and re-signed a known-working build of the app on both machines, just to make sure there weren't any inadvertent build differences caused by building the app with two different versions of Xcode (12.2 on the DTK machine, 12.2 beta 3 on the MacBook Pro). On Dec 7, 2020, at 3:58 PM, Alex Zavatone via groups.io wrote: Jon, have you been able to isolate the difference between the two executables? In any case, I'm hesitant to update to Xcode 12.2 for fear my builds will no longer work on 10.10. I'll boot back into Big Sur and find out which Xcode 12 beta I'm running. However, if I build on my MacBook Pro running macOS 11.1 beta and Xcode 12 beta, the resulting app doesn't have any problems. However, on macOS 10.10, I get the error "the sealed resource directory is invalid" when I run spctl and the system refuses to launch the app, saying it's damaged. The codesign and spctl commands report everything is fine when I run them on macOS 11 or 10.15 and the app launches as expected. On my DTK (Apple Silicon) machine running macOS 11.1 beta and Xcode 12.2, if I go through a standard build and notarization using the Xcode GUI, everything appears to be fine. I've had similar problems when code-signing and notarizing an app using Xcode 12.2 on Big Sur. On Dec 7, 2020, at 4:19 PM, Jon Gotow wrote: On Dec 7, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Mark Allan wrote: On Dec 7, 2020, at 3:21 PM, Mark Allan wrote: No I hadn't checked that tool.but I have now, and it says "YES" ie it's signed correctly, so unfortunately I'm no further forward. On Dec 7, 2020, at 1:21 PM, Mark Allan wrote: Have you tried that? Does it report anything useful? TN2206 ( ) makes reference to using the `check-signature` tool ( ) to validate package signatures. I can't speak to what might be the problem, but I've been reading about code signing and notarization recently in an effort to better understand how it all works at a lower level, so I'm interested in what you find out. Is anyone aware of any changes to pkgbuild and productbuild which might have caused this? The man pages don't reference anything new that might be relevant, so I'm stuck. The signature is valid and I can see this in macOS 11 and 10.15 when clicking the certificate icon in the upper right corner of the window, so I'm not sure what's going on. Get a new copy of the package and try again. The package may have been corrupted or tampered with. Installer_signed.pkg can't be installed because its digital signature is invalid. When I try to open the installer on the older OSes, I'm presented with the following error message: pkg installer file along with all the other elements of the app.įor the last few years this has worked fine, but for some reason I'm now unable to open the resulting pkg file on macOS 10.10 and 10.11. I'm not sure why, it's irritating.I have a script which Xcode runs as a post-action during the archive phase which takes my compiled app, and generates a signed. But if all the necessary drivers work in 64bit there is really no reason not to go 64bit. so like already stated in this thread the only reason not to go for a 64bit OS is your hardware. ![]() Thus 64bit will allow you to use all your installed RAM while on 32bit you are limited to 4GiB, which as already stated is even shared between _all_ applications and the system. On 64bit you can (depending on the ver$ion) use up to 192GiB. Next for Windows 7 in that table it lists that on x86 it is limited to 4GiB, so your _whole_ system has to share 4GiB, even in case you have 8GiB installed. ![]() So 64bit would give you 1 additional GiB. The same application running on x86-64 can use 4GiB. For a 32bit application running on x86 you get 3GiB maximum (according to that table). Anyway to cut a long story short for Windows there is a table () showing the various settings and how much memory your application can see. Windows in some settings don't allow a process access to the full 4GiB, even though with newer paging technology even on a 32bit machine you can have more then 4GiB physical memory though the application can only see 4GiB at a time. For a byte addressable architecture like the x86 this are addresses for 4GiB. ![]() No, 32bit apps are limitted to 3.5gb of ram.ģ2bit limit you to 2 to the power of 32 addresses.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |