Posts: 183
Joined: Oct 2013
I was wondering why you guys don't sign your apps as a "known developer" so that it will be much easier for people to install XBMC to Mac. Further details:
https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/...2-CH12-SW2
Posts: 31,445
Joined: Jan 2011
2014-03-12, 06:41
(This post was last modified: 2014-03-12, 06:43 by Ned Scott.)
It costs money and our devs feel it is against the spirit of open source to charge money for a security feature/privilege like that. Anyone dedicating a Mac to an HTPC can take an extra split second to right-click when opening XBMC for the very first time.
Posts: 3,420
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
95
Piers
Retired Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 3,420
Apple and involves money? Wow.
/sarcasm.
Posts: 6,563
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
160
natethomas
Enjoying Retirement by Staying Busy
Posts: 6,563
I believe the issue is not just the money thing. There's also a deployment issue related to the number of different computers we use to build XBMC that can make signing screwy, and the issue that under the spirit of the GPL what we release should be exactly the same as what users can build, and that wouldn't be the case if the official XBMC for OSX was signed but all user-built versions were not.
Posts: 11,582
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
84
davilla
Retired-Team-XBMC Developer
Posts: 11,582
We would have to make public our signing key so users could build/install exactly what we build. And that would cause us to have said key revoked and we would be back to square one.
It's much easier to just have the user diddle the firewall settings.