From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21788 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2009 14:36:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 21776 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2009 14:36:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (HELO bromo.med.uc.edu) (129.137.3.146) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with SMTP; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:36:36 +0000 Received: from bromo.med.uc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by bromo.med.uc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00CCF400007; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:36:34 -0500 (EST) Received: (from howarth@localhost) by bromo.med.uc.edu (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nBIEaYCg021306; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:36:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:36:00 -0000 From: Jack Howarth To: Tristan Gingold Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb code signing on darwin? Message-ID: <20091218143634.GA21285@bromo.med.uc.edu> References: <20091217171331.GA2469@bromo.med.uc.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-12/txt/msg00119.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:46:46AM +0100, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2009, at 6:13 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Has anyone made progress on solving the issue of the code signing requirement > > for FSF gdb on darwin 10.5.8 and Snow Leopard? > > Jack, > > did you read this wiki entry ? > > http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BuildingOnDarwin > > I hope it explains how to codesign gdb. > > > I am wondering if it is possible to generate a self signed certificate from command > > line tools which will solve the problem on a per-machine basis. > > I don't know if this is possible. But this is out of topic for the gdb mailing list. > If you know the answer, do not hesitate to complete the wiki entry. > > Tristan. Tristan, Thanks for the pointer to the wiki. It appears that, in theory, one should be able to replace the use of the Keychain Access application with explicit calls to the 'security' command line tool. I'll send you an update for the wiki if I can puzzle out the exact form for such calls. Jack