this post is related to the https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2023/10061/
Hi, we are wondering if the framework should be signed.
the video indicates that all xcframework must be signed, on the other hand framework is not mentioned even website.
does anyone have ideas?
What are you planning to do with this framework?
If you plan to distribute it to others, I recommend that you package it up as an XCFramework. That’s the only reasonable way to distribute a framework given the complexities of the modern Apple development environment. And once you do that, you have the answer to your original question (-:
If you’re just using the framework internally, it gets signed when you sign your app.
Share and Enjoy
—
Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"
Thank you for your response, @eskimo
What we want to do is that it makes the old version framework customers are still using conform to Apple Privacy.
The old versioned that is completely different from the latest one has been supplied as only the .framework.
As your response, there is no choice but to make the xcframework because we supply only SDK.
I guess PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy is too.
So now .framework can't be used?
Gazzy wrote:
What we want to do is that it makes the old version framework customers are still using conform to Apple Privacy.
Ah, that’s an interesting edge case. I’m not sure if there’s a good path forward there. It is possible to sign a framework as an independent code item — after all, that’s what we do in every Mac app — but I don’t know if that’ll have the expected flow-on effects in Xcode. You should give it a try and see what happens (-:
kimjitae wrote:
So now
.frameworkcan't be used?
That’s not what I said. Rather, best practice is to ship your SDK as an XCFramework, and that has a well-documented path forward.
Share and Enjoy
—
Quinn “The Eskimo!” @ Developer Technical Support @ Apple
let myEmail = "eskimo" + "1" + "@" + "apple.com"
@eskimo , thank you for your response.
best practice is to ship your SDK as an XCFramework, and that has a well-documented path forward.
I have a question about your statement.
I have guessed that the apps including that xc/framework having no code signing or no PrivacyInfo.xcprivacy would be rejected from upcoming April.
is this correct?