• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag
 

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: codesign vs. install_name_tool
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: codesign vs. install_name_tool


  • Subject: Re: codesign vs. install_name_tool
  • From: Jeff Johnson <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 11:35:14 -0600

Hi John.

Use @rpath/mylib.dylib for the install name. Then application developers can use LD_RUNPATH_SEARCH_PATHS in their build settings to find your library.

-Jeff


On Feb 23, 2012, at 8:41 AM, Dallman, John wrote:

> The products I work on are not applications. They are libraries, which are
> commercial closed-source software, distributed in binary form. They are
> licensed by a variety of ISVs, and used in several assorted and unrelated
> Mac OS X applications.
>
> Those apps all have their own copies of my libraries. They need to have
> their own copies, rather than sharing them, because some of them use
> different versions or different licenses. So the libraries do not form a
> framework or bundle (the headers aren't delivered to end-users), and there
> is no canonical place in the filesystem where these apps put my libraries;
> they each have their own place, and many of them put it somewhere different
> in each version of their app.
>
> So my customers need to use install_name_tool to set the install names of
> my libraries. This works OK so far, but with gatekeeper forthcoming in
> Mountain Lion, there will be pressure to sign my libraries. I can do that,
> but the problem is that changing the install name with install_name_tool
> breaks the signature.
>
> Is there a way to avoid this? I can't see one in the codesign options,
> or via some Googling, but it seemed worth asking.
>
> I can see an argument that allowing install_name_tool to not break the
> signature opens up devious paths for hackery. But it also seems pretty
> clear that Apple are thinking about complete apps, rather than libraries.
>
> My fallback is to use an install name based on @loader_path, which will
> probably do for most of my customers. But it's hard to be sure it will
> do for all of them; they can be quite creative in their application
> designs.
>
> thanks,
>
> --
> John Dallman


 _______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list      (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:

This email sent to email@hidden


  • Follow-Ups:
    • RE: codesign vs. install_name_tool
      • From: "Dallman, John" <email@hidden>
References: 
 >codesign vs. install_name_tool (From: "Dallman, John" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: "Assistant" multi-editor-pane organization
  • Next by Date: Re: 4.3 question and old Developer folder
  • Previous by thread: codesign vs. install_name_tool
  • Next by thread: RE: codesign vs. install_name_tool
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread