On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 09:21:31 +0200, Kristian Rietveld wrote: > >> On 27 Mar 2018, at 03:25, Jehan Pagès <jehan.marmottard@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> But right now, we are discussing paying to distribute a version of GIMP >> which is barely kept alive. This is a bit doing things in the wrong order >> IMO. > > In fact, I think this is the main point. Even in the case we do decide to pay for an account, we need to incorporate this into our build system. And I consider it more important to first get regular 2.10 builds off the ground than to produce signed binaries. > > [I am near having a script that completely automates the build and DMG creation. I wanted to have 2.10 DMGs available already, but unfortunately due to some family related events early this year I had to stall his work for a while. It is my intention to pick it up again now]. > > I voted “I don’t care”, because manually enabling the binary is in my opinion a minor nuisance to some of the other issues that need fixing. Also I don’t need this feature myself, but if the community wants to see this fixed I can look into it. Just a note about this -- in the Mac world, signed binaries are perceived to be a security issue. We (Gutenprint) had always planned to sign our binaries after this came out, but it took us some time to get the details right even with an experienced Mac person on the team and we got a lot of complaints from our Mac users until we got it all set up. -- Robert Krawitz <rlk@xxxxxxxxxxxx> *** MIT Engineers A Proud Tradition http://mitathletics.com *** Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- http://ProgFree.org Project lead for Gutenprint -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ gimp-developer-list mailing list List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
