Hello,
Is anyone else running the BaseX 8.0 betas on Mac OS X? If so has anyone else found that the key bindings in the GUI:
<command> + <return> for Run query and, <command> + <shift> + <return> for Run tests,
are not working? The others I’ve tried are ok.
I don’t know if this is a quirk of my system or an issue I should log.
Many thanks, James
Hi James,
afaik, this problem is specific to Mac OSX and Java 7; it should be resolved with Java 8. This is the reason why we didn't try to find a manual fix for it; any suggestions how to do this properly are welcome, though.
Hope this helps, Christian
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 10:21 PM, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone else running the BaseX 8.0 betas on Mac OS X? If so has anyone else found that the key bindings in the GUI:
<command> + <return> for Run query and, <command> + <shift> + <return> for Run tests,
are not working? The others I've tried are ok.
I don't know if this is a quirk of my system or an issue I should log.
Many thanks, James
On 28.08.2014, at 22:21, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
Is anyone else running the BaseX 8.0 betas on Mac OS X? If so has anyone else found that the key bindings in the GUI:
<command> + <return> for Run query and, <command> + <shift> + <return> for Run tests,
are not working? The others I’ve tried are ok.
I don’t know if this is a quirk of my system or an issue I should log.
Many thanks, James
Hi James,
during the last BaseX hackathon I tried a new way of packaging BaseX for the Mac. I think, it should resolve the issue. You (and others) may try
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2 MD5 (BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2) = a6833cd5182286c94a91609aa0e34b0a
and give me some feedback on this.
Please note that BaseX.app is not officially signed, yet. So you may have to adjust your Security & Privacy (General) settings. I've registered for the signing process, so this will change in the future.
Hope it helps and works Alex
Alex,
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2 MD5 (BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2) = a6833cd5182286c94a91609aa0e34b0a
and give me some feedback on this.
Many thanks, I’ve download it and run it. So far so good.
If the Mac OS X app can be brought back I’ll be very happy. I know I can just run the jar file but having it in my Applications is really useful and so easy for anyone getting started.
I’ll keep using the version you linked to and get back to you if I find anything odd.
Many thanks, James
Hi James, hi former BaseX.app users,
On 28.08.2014, at 23:22, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2 MD5 (BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2) = a6833cd5182286c94a91609aa0e34b0a
and give me some feedback on this.
Many thanks, I’ve download it and run it. So far so good.
If the Mac OS X app can be brought back I’ll be very happy. I know I can just run the jar file but having it in my Applications is really useful and so easy for anyone getting started.
I’ll keep using the version you linked to and get back to you if I find anything odd.
I've just packaged the latest beta as a, now officially signed, BaseX.app.
In the next weeks I'll provide beta snapshots under the following URL
http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2
The current one contains 'BaseX 8.0 beta 274831e' and is bundled with jdk1.8.0_20. MD5 (BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2) = 1dd1625d5352af6a02c7145318f40844
Please let me know if everything works for you (positive feedback will bring the BaseX.app back with the 8.0 release).
Thanks Alex
Hi Alex,
Thank you for putting up the new build. I no longer get any warnings about the source of the application so code signing must be working correctly.
I haven’t found any problems in the application itself either - key bindings are working.
You may already have considered it and just not implemented the process yet but it would be sensible to update a few of the fields in the Info.plist:
CFBundleIdentifier is currently set to org.basex - in case you ever release any other applications, or bundle the server separately, I think this would be better as org.basex.basexgui
CFBundleShortVersionString is currently set to 1.0. I think this should be the ‘marketing’ BaseX version - in this case 8.0
CFBundleVersion is currently set to 1. I think this should be set to the BaseX build number or similar. I think it has to be an integer but if not then the number from the title bar would make sense (currently 274831e) or perhaps the build date/time (2010827211717).
Thank you again for doing this.
Regards, James
On 29 Aug 2014, at 20:56, Alexander Holupirek alexander.holupirek@uni-konstanz.de wrote:
Hi James, hi former BaseX.app users,
On 28.08.2014, at 23:22, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2 MD5 (BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2) = a6833cd5182286c94a91609aa0e34b0a
and give me some feedback on this.
Many thanks, I’ve download it and run it. So far so good.
If the Mac OS X app can be brought back I’ll be very happy. I know I can just run the jar file but having it in my Applications is really useful and so easy for anyone getting started.
I’ll keep using the version you linked to and get back to you if I find anything odd.
I've just packaged the latest beta as a, now officially signed, BaseX.app.
In the next weeks I'll provide beta snapshots under the following URL
http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2
The current one contains 'BaseX 8.0 beta 274831e' and is bundled with jdk1.8.0_20. MD5 (BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2) = 1dd1625d5352af6a02c7145318f40844
Please let me know if everything works for you (positive feedback will bring the BaseX.app back with the 8.0 release).
Thanks Alex
Hi James, hi BaseX.app testers,
your suggestions make perfect sense to me. I've adapted the build process accordingly and produced a new BaseX.app from yesterdays snapshot:
http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2 http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.info.txt
Thanks a lot for your feedback and testing Alex
On 02.09.2014, at 21:07, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
Hi Alex,
Thank you for putting up the new build. I no longer get any warnings about the source of the application so code signing must be working correctly.
I haven’t found any problems in the application itself either - key bindings are working.
You may already have considered it and just not implemented the process yet but it would be sensible to update a few of the fields in the Info.plist:
CFBundleIdentifier is currently set to org.basex - in case you ever release any other applications, or bundle the server separately, I think this would be better as org.basex.basexgui
CFBundleShortVersionString is currently set to 1.0. I think this should be the ‘marketing’ BaseX version - in this case 8.0
CFBundleVersion is currently set to 1. I think this should be set to the BaseX build number or similar. I think it has to be an integer but if not then the number from the title bar would make sense (currently 274831e) or perhaps the build date/time (2010827211717).
Thank you again for doing this.
Regards, James
On 29 Aug 2014, at 20:56, Alexander Holupirek alexander.holupirek@uni-konstanz.de wrote:
Hi James, hi former BaseX.app users,
On 28.08.2014, at 23:22, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
http://files.basex.org/releases/latest/BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2 MD5 (BaseX80-20140827.211717.app.tar.bz2) = a6833cd5182286c94a91609aa0e34b0a
and give me some feedback on this.
Many thanks, I’ve download it and run it. So far so good.
If the Mac OS X app can be brought back I’ll be very happy. I know I can just run the jar file but having it in my Applications is really useful and so easy for anyone getting started.
I’ll keep using the version you linked to and get back to you if I find anything odd.
I've just packaged the latest beta as a, now officially signed, BaseX.app.
In the next weeks I'll provide beta snapshots under the following URL
http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2
The current one contains 'BaseX 8.0 beta 274831e' and is bundled with jdk1.8.0_20. MD5 (BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2) = 1dd1625d5352af6a02c7145318f40844
Please let me know if everything works for you (positive feedback will bring the BaseX.app back with the 8.0 release).
Thanks Alex
Alex,
Thank you for the latest build — I’ve downloaded it and something isn’t right with the code signing as I’m getting warnings. For some reason I’m also now getting the warning if I try to run the previous version. I have no idea why anything should have changed on the previous version or how I got it to work — but I’ve done some investigation on your latest package.
I think that it is being signed with your Mac Developer certificate. [ Mac Developer: Alexander Holupirek (ER9NUV223U) ]
I’m not expert on the developer certificates but I think that each application has to be signed with a Developer ID Application certificate.
Compare the result of testing another non-Mac App Store application:
jb8748$ spctl -a -vvvv ./Across\ Lite.app/ ./Across Lite.app/: accepted source=Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: Literate Software LLC
with BaseX:
jb8748$ spctl -a -vvvv ~/Downloads/BaseX.app/ /Users/jb8748/Downloads/BaseX.app/: rejected origin=Mac Developer: Alexander Holupirek (ER9NUV223U)
A check with code sign [ codesign -d -vvv ~/Downloads/BaseX.app/ ] suggests that there is nothing wrong with the hashes or the signature. So it seems that it’s just that it’s signed with a certificate that isn’t accepted by Gatekeeper.
I think that a registered developer can obtain a Developer ID Application certificate — it’s just a request somewhere on the portal. Perhaps you have to have one per application which is why it’s different to your Mac Developer one?
It’s all a bit of a black art to me but I hope this helps!
Regards, James
Hi James,
thank you very much for your feedback and suggestions. You definitely brought me on the right track.
On 15.09.2014, at 16:09, James Ball basex-talk@jamesball.co.uk wrote:
I think that it is being signed with your Mac Developer certificate. [ Mac Developer: Alexander Holupirek (ER9NUV223U) ] I’m not expert on the developer certificates but I think that each application has to be signed with a Developer ID Application certificate.
You're perfectly right about that. There are different certificates to obtain for different tasks [0].
Compare the result of testing another non-Mac App Store application:
jb8748$ spctl -a -vvvv ./Across\ Lite.app/ ./Across Lite.app/: accepted source=Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: Literate Software LLC
with BaseX:
jb8748$ spctl -a -vvvv ~/Downloads/BaseX.app/ /Users/jb8748/Downloads/BaseX.app/: rejected origin=Mac Developer: Alexander Holupirek (ER9NUV223U)
A check with code sign [ codesign -d -vvv ~/Downloads/BaseX.app/ ] suggests that there is nothing wrong with the hashes or the signature. So it seems that it’s just that it’s signed with a certificate that isn’t accepted by Gatekeeper.
I think that a registered developer can obtain a Developer ID Application certificate — it’s just a request somewhere on the portal. Perhaps you have to have one per application which is why it’s different to your Mac Developer one?
Very right. I'm now signing with 'Developer ID Application: BaseX GmbH (K88H76ZSQF)' and the verification tools give following output:
% spctl --status assessments enabled % spctl -a -vvvv ./app/BaseX.app ./app/BaseX.app: accepted source=Developer ID origin=Developer ID Application: BaseX GmbH (K88H76ZSQF)
It’s all a bit of a black art to me but I hope this helps!
I'm glad that the Apple document about that topic is entitled 'Your Signing Certificates in Depth'. I was not aware of this depth before. But now, I'm confident that the current BaseX.app [1] is in quite good shape (at least concerning the signing issue ;-)
Thanks a lot Alex
[0] https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/IDEs/Conceptual/AppDis... [1] http://files.basex.org/releases/BaseX-latest.app.tar.bz2 (22-Sep-2014 10:31, MD5 37ea3aa39bdb5a4efb467535ebe5894e)
Alex,
But now, I'm confident that the current BaseX.app [1] is in quite good shape (at least concerning the signing issue ;-)
I’ve downloaded it and can confirm it opens without me having to override Gatekeeper. I haven’t tested any further but I’ll use it over the coming days and report back anything unexpected.
Thanks, James
basex-talk@mailman.uni-konstanz.de
-
Alexander Holupirek -
Christian Grün -
James Ball