Adium 1.5.1

[Evan D. Schoenberg, M.D.]

Where should 1.5.1 be built from? I see that trunk currently reports as 1.6hg.  

I've made the minimum needed change to the codesign invocation.   (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c5ac17ab998d)

I've then changed it to signing the whole app bundle, which is what I believe Apple recommends. (http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/f8c02c748e9a)
 Was there a specific reason we were signing just the binary itself?

-Evan


On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Eric Richie wrote:

> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Robert Vehse <robert.vehse at freenet.de (mailto:robert.vehse at freenet.de)> wrote:
> > 
> > Am 07.05.2012 um 21:13 schrieb Evan Schoenberg:
> > 
> > > 
> > > On May 7, 2012, at 1:38 PM, Eric Richie <eric at adium.im (mailto:eric at adium.im)> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Evan Schoenberg <evan at adium.im (mailto:evan at adium.im)> wrote:
> > > > > libpurple has been updated to 2.10.4 with 2 security fixes, and I'd also like to have us distributing a Developer ID signed binary.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We may need to include some explicit parameters (the designated requirement) in the codesign line used in the release script, but I'm not positive with our current OS X targeting; we're ok on 10.7 without but 10.6.8 may need
> > > > > it to behave properly.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Any objections to a beta in the next couple days?
> > > > > 
> > > > > -Evan
> > > > 
> > > > Nope. Let's do it.
> > > > 
> > > > Are you going to be looking into the parameters?
> > > 
> > > Yup. I'll take care of it.
> > > 
> > > -Evan
> > 
> > Is http://hg.adium.im/adium/rev/c494bae9da94 a good point to branch from?
> 
> 
> That looks to be about as good a place as any.
> 
> -Eric 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://adium.im/pipermail/devel_adium.im/attachments/20120511/f671d05f/attachment-0002.html>