I am building and packaging a mac store app from the command line. This results in a .dSYM file I have extracted from the binary within the app using dsymutil, then we codesign the .app, then package it using productbuild.
Passing this .pkg around our team it installs successfully, and is accepted by Application Loader's pre-checks and it appears in itunes connect builds list.
The problem is that on the build details in itunes connect 'Includes Symbols' is 'No'.
Using Application Loader there doesn't appear to be any option to upload the .dSYM debug symbols.
So, any ideas on how we can upload a build to iTunes Connect where
'Includes Symbols' is 'Yes'?
Looking at xcode, it seems to create a .pkg file with a folder inside called 'Symbolication' which seems to indicate that it is the responsibility of productbuild, rather than Application Loader.
XCode posts out logs for each build and archive it does, by inspecting these we can see that it uses the 'symbols' tool to extract symbols from the dSYM output, then packages these with productbuild using the (undocumented) --symbolication flag.
The log files are called:
IDEDistribution.critical.log
IDEDistribution.standard.log
IDEDistribution.verbose.log
within a directory ending in 'xcdistributionlogs' within /var/folders/
So you want to do something like:
dsymutil myapp.app/Contents/MacOS/myapp -o myapp.app.dSYM
# TargetSymbolFolder must exist prior to calling symbols
mkdir TargetSymbolFolder
# Args are lifted from the xcode logs
symbols -noTextInSOD -noDaemon -arch all -symbolsPackageDir TargetSymbolFolder myapp.app.dSYM/Contents/Resources/Dwarf/myapp
...other build steps, codesign and such
# symbolication is undocumented, again it is from xcode logs
productbuild --symbolication TargetSymbolFolder --component myapp.app /Applications myapp.pkg
If you now use pkgutil to open up the created .pkg you can see the Sybolication folder within the pkg
pkgutil --expand myapp.pkg myapp.pkg.expanded
Related
We are currently trying to have our app verified in order to distribute it outside of the app store. We are including OpenSceneGraph libraries as well as Qt frameworks in the app bundle.
This is how we did it so far:
Signed executable in Contents/MacOS folder
Signed libraries and Qt frameworks
Signed App.app folder
zipped .app and submitted for Notarization
The executable, libraries and frameworks signing is done manually with the codesign command, and to sign the whole .app we do the following:
codesign --force --verify --verbose=3 --options runtime --timestamp --entitlements App.entitlements -s "Developer ID Application: Our Dev Id" App.app
When we send the zipped .app to be notarized we usually get a quick reply informing us that the notarization was successful, but if we try to run
spctl --verbose --assess --type execute -v App.app
we get the following error:
App.app: rejected (unsealed contents present in the root directory of an embedded framework)
Also inspecting the json file with the notarization output we notice the same error, but it is marked as a warning and checking it with codesign no error is returned.
After a bit of digging we realized that the issue is related to the Qt frameworks: as a counterproof, we tried to submit the same app without the Qt frameworks and this time when the bundle was successfully notarized spctl accepted it too.
Consequently, we eliminated the all symlinks in the root directory, moved the .prl files into the Resources/ folder, and created an alias to A/ in the Versions/ subfolder as suggested in several forum posts, but we have not been able to have spctl accept our bundle with the Qt frameworks. Now at the root of each framework there is just the Versions folder and nothing else (we checked with ls-lha to be sure)
What are we missing in this? Is there a way to at least get some hint on where is the unsealed content which is upsetting the verification tool?
Thank you in advance
In the end, turns out macdeployqt was the way to go, because it automatically arranges the Frameworks in a way that makes it possible to sign the bundle with no error.
Our problem with some framework not being added by macdeployqt disappeared when we upgraded from Qt 5.12.2 to Qt 5.14.1
We have a multi-platform suite of command-line executables and libraries that we ported to Mac. The file layout was
/Applications/
(company folder)/
(our UI).app
(product name)/
bin/
...executalbes...
lib/
...dylibs...
(other stuff)/...
This was shipped in a DMG that was codesigned, as was the app. This worked OK until Catalina.
Now on Catalina, we have codesigned all the executables, dylibs, apps (including ones nested in the top-level app's framework), frameworks, and the DM itself. When we notarize it the resulting JSON log lists no issues. However, when I run any of our executables that depends on one of our dylibs I get a pop-up telling me the "developer cannot be identified". Even though it has been signed and notarized OK. Running codesign with -dvvv option includes the following:
SHA-256 hash choice
list of Authority entries terminating in Apple Root CA
TeamIdentifier entry
Timestamp
Runtime: 10.13.0
Question How can I fix this, or at least get Gatekeeper to tell me why it's not accepting this file? Maybe a log, or an equivalent of spctl --assess for files rather than apps?
Observations
This only happens when
the OS is Catalina
it's under the /Applications folder
outside of /Applications (e.g. in a folder on desktop) it only happens sometimes (and sometimes it claims a dylib can't be loaded on first attempt, then succeeds if tried a moment later)
the executable depends on one or more of our dylibs (standalone ones run OK)
the executable has the com.apple.quarantine xattr set
I've tried to mix'n'match between clean and downloaded (i.e. quarantine-xattr'd files) and the problem only arises if the executable is quarantined; it doesn't care if a non-quarantined executable loads a quaratined dylib
The signing operation was done via codesign with args "--deep --strict --timestamp --options runtime", and then verified
EDIT: I've since updated this to include some the Hardened Runtime entitlements to fix another build issue, but it hasn't helped with this one
The executables depend on the dylibs via #rpath (as reported by otool -L)
EDIT: I'ver tried replacing the #rpath with #executable_path/../lib in each case, and that hasn't helped
One more tidbit that Apple haven't added to their documentation; if you are distributing a dylib rather than a full app bundle, you can't staple the notarisation results to it. So far, so documented, and Catalina should verify the notarisation online when the software is installed.
However, the notarised dylib will be rejected on the build machine unless you add it to a container (i.e. zip/dmg), remove the original copy, then extract it from the zip again after the notarisation has been fully accepted (i.e. you have received the success email). It appears that the notarisation is only checked when the file is created.
You can always run it from within XCode, but not on it's own, without removing and replacing the binary.
Currently I am working on submitting an app to the mac app store. I have gone through several steps but am stuck on the last one. This is as I am trying to build my .app file (made in unity) into a .pkg so I am able to Deliver it to iTunes connect via application loader.
I am entering this command into terminal:
productbuild --component GAMENAME.app /Applications --sign "3rd Party Mac Developer Installer: DEVELOPER NAME" GAMENAME.pkg
For some reason though, after entering even though I don not get an error:
Usage: productbuild [--product <requirements-plist>] {--component <component-path> <install-path>} <product-output-path>
Build product with a self-contained bundle, e.g. for the Mac App Store
Usage: productbuild {--content <content-path>} <product-output-path>
Build product with in-app content
Usage: productbuild [--product <requirements-plist>] {--root <root-path> <install-path>} <product-output-path>
Build product with an xcodebuild destination root
Usage: productbuild [options] --distribution <dist-path> [--package-path <search-path>] <product-output-path>
Build product with a distribution and the packages it references
Usage: productbuild --synthesize [--product <requirements-plist>] {--package <pkg-path>} <distribution-output-path>
Synthesize and write a distribution from component packages
See productbuild(1) for details.
I cannot find the .pkg file that has just been built...
I am not sure if this is because it is hidden somewhere or if I have made a mistake I'm unaware of, but any help would be appreciated
So, in short This question basically is how to make a .app to a .pkg which can be using application loader uploaded to iTunes connect...
EDIT:
Ok as someone suggested I might have gotten the initial terminal command wrong after all so any suggestions on where I went wrong would be appreciated.
Your developer name must be followed by the team ID.
Like - "DEVELOPER NAME (ABC123456)"
I develop a Mac app with Qt5, so outside Xcode. I want GateKeeper to allow my app to run on clients' computers rather than issuing the "Can't be opened because the identity of the developer cannot be confirmed" warning.
I have successfully digitally signed the app but GateKeeper still comes with this complaint. I have an Apple developer certificate (I am the Team Agent) and my keychain says it is valid. I also have installed two Apple root certificates.
I use the command line utility codesign to digitally sign all the binaries inside the app folder and in addition I digitally sign the app folder itself. In all cases the response of codesign is informative and displays no error. With codesign I can check that indeed all the binaries are signed, running
$ codesign --verify --deep --verbose=2 MyApp.app
shows that all binaries are validated. And in addition it reports:
MyApp.app: valid on disk
MyApp.app: satisfies its Designated Requirement
Running:
$ codesign -v --verbose=4 --display MyApp.app
gives
Executable=/Users/xxx/trunk/yyy/deploy/release/MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS/MyApp
Identifier=aaaa.MyApp
Format=bundle with Mach-O thin (x86_64)
CodeDirectory v=20200 size=12461 flags=0x0(none) hashes=616+3 location=embedded
Hash type=sha1 size=20
CDHash=d1c12c783dac0e8d9a2b749fb896b11558cec8b6
Signature size=8532
Authority=Developer ID Application: XXXXX
Authority=Developer ID Certification Authority
Authority=Apple Root CA
Timestamp=29 jul. 2015 12;04:40
Info.plist entries=8
TeamIdentifier=YYYYY
Sealed Resources version=2 rules=12 files=10
Internal requirements count=1 size=180
which seems OK.
Running
$ spctl -a -t exec -vv MyApp.app
on all binaries gives as result
MyApp.app: accepted
source=Developer ID
origin=Developer ID Application: XXXX
which also seems OK
Running the XCode command line tool check-signature
on the app or on the binaries inside the app folder:
$ ./check-signature /Users/xxx/trunk/yyy/release/MyApp.app
gives as result
(c) 2014 Apple Inc. All rights reserved.
YES
which in all cases is the desired result.
But GateKeeper still does not accept the app and complains about the fact that the developer cannot be confirmed.
[added by author on Friday July 17, 2015]
I think I have found the problem. I do not know whether it is a feature or an OSX bug. I was helped a lot by stackoverflow question 19551298.
Whenever a file is downloaded from the internet it gets an extended file attribute com.apple.quarantine associated with it. When double-clicking on this downloaded file in Finder, GateKeeper has two possibilities:
When the file is not signed it issues the "Unidentified developer etc" message
When the file is digitally signed it issues the "Developer cannot be confirmed etc" message
In both cases the MessageBox has only one button, an OK button. When this button is clicked nothing happens, apart from the MessageBox closing.
If the extended attribute is deleted (xattr -d) the applications runs, signed or not.
The behavior is different when the applications is started by right-mouse-button-clicking in Finder on the app and then click on the "open" menu action. Again one of the two messageboxes is shown, but now with an extra button to allow the user to open the app anyway. Again the only difference between signed and not signed is the "Unidentified" or the "Not confirmed" message. I do not expect my customers to be able to tell the differende. As a result signing the app is an exercise in futility.
On the basis of the Apple Support Documentation I expected another, much nicer behavior of GateKeeper when double clicking a downloaded app (perhaps the documentation is outdated, or I misread it):
if the app is signed GateKeeper should show a MessageBox with "Downloaded from the internet etc" and a button with "Proceed anyway?"
if the app is not signed a MessageBox with a single OK button and a text "Unidentified developer etc.."
Sorry for answering my own question, but I see no other way as editing the original question would lead to spaghetti text.
I finally solved my problem. First the credit: (i) The answer to my other stackoverflow question was very useful and (ii) I got very good (paid) advice from an official Apple developer, by filing a so-called Technical Support Incident (TSI).
On the basis of all this I am now able to give here a very concise recipe of how getting your Mac app successfully treated by GateKeeper. After detailing the recipe I will show what my original mistake was.
Goal: After having developed a Mac app outside Xcode to have GateKeeper issuing the warning "Downloaded from the Internet ..." with three buttons, one of which is "open".
Failure: When GateKeeper issues a warning with either the text ".. unidentified developer.." or the text ".. unconfirmed developer .. " with - in both cases - a messagebox with a single OK button.
Getting your app GateKeeper-ready involves three steps:
Make your app standalone with no unacceptable external dependencies. The only acceptable external dependences are system libraries. All other dependencies should have been copied to your MyApp.app folder. GateKeeper rejects any app that has non-system external dependencies
Binaries should not be located at illegal positions inside the MyApp.app folder. Libraries go into MyApp/Contents/Frameworks and the executable goes into MyApp/Contents/MacOS
All binaries inside MyApp should be digitally signed. Then the MyApp.app folder should be signed. For this signing an Apple "Developer ID Application ..." certificate is necessary
Our recipe is automatic. All the work is done by one script. In case of Qt Creator we use a qmake script where we access the system shell through the $$system command. When using either of the (Xcode) system commands codesign, spctl or check-signature we assume you have redirected stderr to stdout as outlined in answer to question . Otherwise you will not be able to catch the system response when running these utilities. In the following we will not explicitly show this redirection.
HERE IS OUR RECIPE
A. Making the app stand-alone:
copy (with a script) all the needed binaries to the MyApp.folder
run (with a script) install_name_tool -change and install_name_tool -id such that all dependences inside the app are of the relative type #executable_path/../MacOS.. or #executable_path/../Frameworks
run (with a script) otool -L on all binaries inside the MyApp.app folder and flag any illegal dependence, like "#rpath..." or absolute file paths not being system paths. Note that otool -L is not guaranteed to find all dependencies. Plugins are often beyond the horizon of otool. That is why you need the next check.
start a terminal at the location "MyApp.app/Contents/MacOS". Run export DYLD_PRINT_LIBRARIES=1. Then run inside the same terminal window ./MyApp. Your terminal will fill up with over hundred loaded libraries. Check this list again for forbidden libraries (libraries present on your computer, but not on the computer of your customers).
proof of the pudding is in the eating. We use the MacInCloud virtual machines and check whether or not our app runs there. Alternative solution could be the Mac of a relative who is not a developer. Or you could also create a new user ("test") on your own Mac and copy the app to its Download (or Desktop folder, or ...). In the latter case you must temporarily rename the root folder of your IDE as otherwise the user "test" will find the missing binaries there.
B Signing the app
Signing: With our script we run codesign --force --verify --verbose --sign \"Developer ID Application: ....\" \"/path/to/binary\" on all the binaries in the app and then on the app folder itself. In each case the system response is caught. It should contain in each case the string "signed Mach-O thin".
Verification: Run (with a script) command codesign --verify --verbose \"/path/to/binary\" on each binary in your app and on the app itself and catch the system response. It should in each case contain the strings "valid on disk" and "satisfies its Designated Requirement".
GateKeeper check: Run (with a script) spctl -a -t exec -vv /path/to/binary\" on each binary and on the app folder itself. The system response is caught. It should contain in all cases the string "accepted source".
check-signature: Run (with a script) check-signature \"/path/to/banary\" on each binary and on the app folder itself. The system response is caught. It should contain the string "YES" in each case.
C External check
zip your app into a single zip file. Upload to one of your cloud servers
GateKeepers keeps a long list (typically hundreds of items) of exceptions on its general gate-keeper role. Your app must not be in that list if you want to test GateKeeper. Rather than editing this list a much simpler trick is creating a new user on your Mac. Log in to that user and download the zip file from the Internet cloud server. Finder will automatically uncompress it. Click on it. If GateKeeper tells you that it can open the application but it warns you at the same time that it is downloaded from the Internet, it is time to grab a (white) beer.
Here the desired GateKeeper warning:
My mistake
I did much of the installing and signing without explicitly checking the result for each binary. After that I would use otool -L on a number of binaries but not on all. I missed the fact that upgrading to Qt 5.5 from an earlier Qt version the binary libqminimal.dylib has acquired an extra dependency, viz.: QtDBus. I had not noticed it, but GateKeeper did.
Qt developers might wonder why we not just use macdeployqt for deploying Qt application on a Mac. In the first place we do not like not to use ill-documented black-box utilities. On Internet fora there are quite a number of people reporting issues with macdeployqt. In addition the Qt libraries can have different install locations (as reported by otool-L) when comparing different Qt versions. When we have a new Qt version our script will immediately start to yell about forbidden dependencies. In this way we get information about what has changed in this new version.
adlag's question and self-answer was invaluable in helping me overcome the same issue. However, as good as his recipe is, some statements are not quite right, so I'd like to offer a few additional points.
It's not necessary to replace #rpath entries in your binaries and dynamic libraries with #executable_path statements. #rpath statements are fine so long as the actual rpath entries embedded in the binaries are not absolute. You can find plenty of valid Qt app bundles that use rpath. You can make it work doing what adlag said, but you may be making work for yourself.
See jil's comment above for how to use otool -l $file | grep -A2 LC_RPATH and install_name_tool -delete_rpath $path $file to inspect and remove the embedded paths in your binaries and libraries
See https://developer.apple.com/library/content/technotes/tn2206/_index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40007919-CH1-TNTAG207 for a clear explanation of why GateKeeper complains about paths in your binaries, and how you can see the specific complaint in syslog.
If you have a problem with absolute paths, you should first try to fix your build, rather than use install_name_tool after the fact.
If you're using cmake, this is likely helpful: https://cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_RPATH_handling#Mac_OS_X_and_the_RPATH
Don't run spctl -a -t exec -vv /path/to/binary on dylib files. You will get errors about the resource envelope. This is expected, and not a problem.
In my experience, macdeployqt works fine. I solved the problem by changing my build, such that the absolute paths did not get into the offending dylib file (libquazip). I still used install_name_tool to remove the absolute paths to the Qt installation. I then used macdeployqt to create the bundle, sign the bundle and create the DMG file.
My two bits:
To really verify codesigning, I had to either upload my DMG to a
server and download it using a browser or set the quarantine attribute manually:
APP_PATH="Any.app"
xattr -w com.apple.quarantine '0081;5a37dc6a;Google Chrome;F15F7E1C-F894-4B7D-91B4-E110D11C4858' "$APP_PATH"
xattr -l "$APP_PATH" # You should see the quarantine attribute here
open "$APP_PATH"
If your app is correctly signed, you should see a system dialog with
an "Open" button.
I found the value of the quarantine attribute by looking at another
.app downloaded from the internet. I don't know what the value
means.
I don't really understand why the spctl command says "accepted" even
if the Gatekeeper service denies opening the app.
I had the "unidentified developer" message box because my Qt frameworks were referenced as "#rpath/QtCore.framework". Changing it to "#application_path/../Frameworks/QtCore.framework" using the install_name_tool fixed the issue in my app.
Figured out the problem after lot of tries.
In my case:
The Pop Message - damaged application came due to libraries were missing.
I Had created .app file using QT.
To generate dmg i was using deploymacqt command tool.
deploymacqt tool creates dynamic libraries inside .app, so basically if we codesign before creating dmg, this alter will manipulate code sign.
So the proper fix is.
# Create dmg using
deploymacqt <yourapp.app> -dmg
# Open resulted dmg file, copy <yourapp.app> to different folder(let's say /Documents/<yourapp.app>)
# Codesign the /Documents/<yourapp.app> using
codesign --deep --force --verify --verbose --sign "Developer ID Application: <developerid>" <yourapp.app>
# Verify using
codesign --verify --verbose=4 <yourapp.app>
* you should see something like this
<yourapp.app>: valid on disk
<yourapp.app>: satisfies its Designated Requirement
# Now create again the dmg file using dropdmg(https://c-command.com/dropdmg/) application, download, install dropdmg. set the cofiguration preferences with your developer id certificate in signing option.
# drag and drop <yourapp.app> to dropdmg app, wait for creation of dmg to complete. voila you have now successfully created dmg with proper developer id certification.
# verify resulted dmg again using
codesign --verify --verbose=4 <yourapp.dmg>
# you can also verify with gatekeeper
spctl -a -t exec -vv <yourapp.dmg>
once you are done with these, you will not see pop message saying app is damaged or broken or unidentified developer.
You need to verify all your rpath with command line otool -l of your executable and yours Frameworks. If you have a local rpath (ex: /user/name/Qt/) in your executable delete it (with this command install_name_tool -delete_rpath).
Is it possible to go from an .xcarchive bundle to an .app bundle without using the Xcode Organizer? I'd like to create an automated build and get the final .app file that I can distribute. Using xcodebuild with the archive target works great for getting the .xcarchive file, but not for the final app.
With the iOS SDK, there's a PackageApplication tool you can use with xcrun, but this doesn't appear to exist with the OS X SDK.
I'd also like to do this so I can hopefully get more diagnostics from the Distribution process, which is failing for me right now with the infamous 100021 OS error code.
Have you looked inside the .xcarchive bundle? It's just a folder. Your .app targets should be inside, in a Products subfolder.
In Finder, right-click the archive and click Show Package Contents. in Terminal, use cd.
Try the -exportArchive flag in the xcodebuild command:
xcodebuild -exportArchive -exportFormat app -archivePath <path to .xcarchive> -exportPath "My App.app" -exportSigningIdentity "Developer ID Application: My Software Company"
This command is present in Xcode 5.0.1. See the man page for more details on the optional arguments. This example exports a Developer ID signed application.
Here is what I have discovered about this issue:
As previously suggested, the xcodebuild's archive buildaction is good for getting the .xcarchive, but there does not appear to be an actual way to perform the validate or distribution commands from the command-line. I hope this eventually turns out to be false.
I was able to trick the validation tool by removing the embedded symbolic links in the embedded framework directories. This works, but after discussing with Apple support it turns out this is tricking the tool and not actually producing a valid result.
Apple support says they see this error code if one of the .plist files in an embedded framework is invalid. It turns out, in my example, I had 3 embedded frameworks and 1 of them had an empty .plist file, likely from me hand-building the project. After fixing that, the build would continue happily.