gon VS swift-corelibs-foundation

It might be less effort to use something like this: https://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2021/04/14/pure-rust-implement...

Might even be able to modify `gon` to use that instead of Apple's `codesign` and then you'll have notarization too: https://github.com/mitchellh/gon

I’ve always used gon ( https://github.com/mitchellh/gon ) for this, which is open source golang, but I don’t think it supports mach-o embedding. I’ll have to try this tool out.

There is no need for some special solution to pack your .app, you need to create .app directories, copy your binary, create Info.plist with metadata about your binary, icon, etc. I did this for a couple of apps and it is simple. It is another thing if you want to sign and notarize the binary, there are other tools for that, like https://github.com/mitchellh/gon.

I use gon to sign and notarize a DMG file. Once you set it up, it's a simple one-line command that will upload the DMG to Apple, await notarization, and give you back a DMG that's ready for distribution.

My advice from years of notarizing my apps is to make sure you do it at least once per day for each of your apps. If you only notarize once every release (say, every month or so), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some new cryptic error that you've never seen before, either due to some glitch in signing your app or frameworks, or else some server-side error such as new terms & conditions that you are being "encouraged" to agree to. It will take you hours to research and resolve them if they aren't spotted right away.

As others pointed out, https://github.com/mitchellh/gon is a great tool for doing this on your local machine (e.g., with a cron job). In addition, if you are building your app using a GitHub action (which I highly recommend if it is open-source), you can use my https://github.com/hubomatic/hubomat action to package and notarize a release in one shot. The sample/template app does this automatically on every commit as well as once per day: https://github.com/hubomatic/MicroVector/actions.

So when this fails from a scheduled job, you at least know that something has changed on the Apple side and can investigate that right away. And if it fails as a result of a commit, then at least you can start looking at what changes you may have made to your entitlements or code signing settings or embedded frameworks or any of the other million things that can cause it to fail.

a : https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/blob/main...

I wouldn't want to be the guy relying on this table advancement for this project. The fact that they're rewriting it in pure swift probably says a lot about the quality of the current approach.

b: makes absolutely no difference from a developer perspective. if you want to run threads in swift you're going to use gcd.

c: my take with all apple software tech has been to wait until they've dogfooded their own tech long enough to make it useable. Worked very well for me so far, thank you very much.

Correction: rewrite of PARTS of Foundation

There already was an open-source project to rewrite ALL of foundation, but it had stalled on the shores of having to re-implement everything:

  https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation

The (shitty) old Linux implementation has been on GitHub for years.

Sigh... The traditional argument is that every dependency is of the same quality and trustworthiness of the language Standard Library.

If I use the SL, then I should also have no problem using some lashed-up chimera that has a dependency hierarchy that spans three continents.

Like I said, I'll do things my way.

For the record, here's a peek at some of the "worthless" packages that I use in my own work: https://github.com/RiftValleySoftware

Also, for the record, here's the Swift Foundation Library: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation

It has plenty of open issues: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/issues

If every dependency chain can match these, yhen I'll be open to considering them.

As it is, I do use the occasional external package, but I'm picky.

CoreFoundation is (partially?) open-source and cross-platform now: https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation

Partly this is doable because although RFC 2616 specifies a max URL length of 2048 bytes, most browsers allow much longer, with Chrome and Firefox allowing at least 64k chars (that's what they'll display but it seems like more is happily processed), while Safari allows URL strings up to 2GB in size[1]!

[1] https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/blob/b23d...

Regarding your point #3, Swift does indeed have an open-source cross-platform implementation of Foundation. swift-corelibs-foundation

Foundation is open source and (mostly) works on Linux. What else do you want to see “opened up?”

Foundation is not the standard library of Swift. Swift has its own standard library that is bundled with the language on all platforms that are supported.

And Foundation itself isn't written in Swift, a good portion is written in C.

> A significant portion of the implementation of Foundation on Apple platforms is provided by another framework called CoreFoundation (a.k.a. CF). CF is written primarily in C and is very portable. Therefore we have chosen to use it for the internal implementation of Swift Foundation where possible. As CF is present on all platforms, we can use it to provide a common implementation everywhere.

https://github.com/apple/swift-corelibs-foundation/blob/main...