<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">MacPorts actually does sign some apps: for example, HexFiend seems to be ad-hoc signed as a result of the Xcode build process. I don’t think GateKeeper actually comes into play here because the resulting binary never has the com.apple.quarantine xattr set. I do run with SIP and GateKeeper disabled normally, though, and Apple hasn’t released a stable build of macOS 10.14.5 yet, so I’d take my testing with a grain of salt ;)<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Regards,<br class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Saagar Jha</div>
</div>
<div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Apr 12, 2019, at 23:47, Joshua Root <<a href="mailto:jmr@macports.org" class="">jmr@macports.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On 2019-4-13 07:57 , Jack Howarth wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""> What will be the situation with 10.14.5 and its enforcement of<br class="">notarization for Applications and kernel extensions for MacPorts? In<br class="">particular, will the new notarization requirement limit users to the<br class="">MacPorts build machine copies of such packages which have applications<br class="">rather than being able to build those packages locally?<br class=""> Jack<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">The MacPorts installer pkg will need to be submitted, but I don't think<br class="">much else will change. Using MacPorts-built kernel extensions is already<br class="">impossible because of signing requirements (we don't have a kext signing<br class="">certificate and I don't think we qualify for one.)<br class=""><br class="">For general apps, Gatekeeper doesn't prevent running locally built ones<br class="">due to them being unsigned, and I gather than notarization is only<br class="">required in the same circumstances as signing. (It would be incredibly<br class="">inconvenient for developers to test anything if this were not the case.)<br class=""><br class="">- Josh<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>