From: chrisridd@mac.com   
      
   On 15/02/2025 09:30, Francois LE COAT wrote:   
   > Hi,   
   >   
   > Chris Ridd writes:   
   >> Francois LE COAT wrote:   
   >>>>> Do you know the status of ARAnyM developments? There's only one   
   >>>>> developer for the macOS target, and the support of Apple Silicon is   
   >>>>> hardly working, though the JIT compiler is not supported yet. Before   
   >>>>> thinking about an iOS support, there's a lot to be done with macOS!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Of course I do, and it does look a bit of a mess. If your "one   
   >>>> developer for the macOS target" is Philipp Donze, then he doesn't   
   >>>> upstream his changes :-(   
   >>>   
   >>> Well the mess is not from developers, but from GitHub that is a   
   >>> Microsoft technology. I don't understand anything to GitHub, that   
   >>> is rather intended to Windows developers exclusively, I suspect.   
   >>   
   >> I'm not sure. I don't perceive a Windows bias in Github, after all it   
   >> was used for open source projects for a very long time before   
   >> Microsoft bought GitHub.   
   >>   
   >>>> Having said that, I did build the MacAranym-Latest.xcodeproj a while   
   >>>> ago, create a small improvement to the screenshot code, and I do run   
   >>>> it on an M1. The "main" MacAranym.xcodeproj is no longer buildable   
   >>>> on any modern Mac/Xcode.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's what we're talking. For instance for the Hatari projects, there's   
   >>> releases, and developments. But for ARAnyM it's not the case, at all.   
   >>> If there was a favorite developments platform, like the ATARI VCS, that   
   >>> would make things easier. x86 ARAnyM target is the most accomplished,   
   >>> for Windows, macOS and GNU/Linux. For ARM all is rather experimental.   
   >>> Among GitHub, all CPU targets, the situation for devels is inextricable.   
   >>> Specially for old software like ARAnyM, that is in delicate situation.   
   >>> It seems to me that peoples are discouraged with the GitHub complexity.   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps, but honestly it just looks like git to me with their own   
   >> style of pull requests. Nothing outrageously different here. Do you   
   >> have any concrete examples of "the situation for devels is   
   >> inextricable" especially regarding GitHub?   
   >   
   > Yes. Will I have to pay developers to obtain macOS or Windows binaries?   
      
   I can't speak for Windows. But for Macs there are a few scenarios for   
   developers:   
      
   * do nothing: the app cannot be notarised by Apple and users will get   
   warned the app is untrusted. There's an extra step in System Settings   
   that the user has to take to allow it. This is not difficult, but it   
   needs documenting. It only affects the first run.   
      
   * pay for an individual Apple Developer Program membership ($99 per   
   annum): this lets the developer submit it to Apple for notarisation, and   
   users will no longer get a warning.   
      
   * figure out how to get a waiver for that program membership for the   
   Aranym *team* ($0 but there is some overhead as you have to be an   
   official (and US?) non-profit organisation): this lets the team submit   
   it to Apple for notarisation, and users will no longer get a warning.   
      
   Developers can notarise as many times per year as they want, so you'd   
   want to do this in an automated way for every build. I think Philipp's   
   done this, possibly with an individual membership.   
      
   Apple's notarisation system is meant to scan your code for "malicious   
   content". Obviously you can choose to believe they really just want to   
   screw developers out of $99 every year.   
      
   I assume (but have no evidence) that the waiver option is aimed at open   
   source projects. It would be interesting to find out what other open   
   source projects actually do.   
      
   --   
   Chris   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)