It would be the same.

Hey, were you able to figure out why this is happening? We are facing a similar issue here. Would be helpful if you could share how you dealt with the problem You should probably open a DTS ticket for help with this problem from Apple. This question is a year old and these forums are one of the quietest places on the internet.

That's the way it works. Dynamic libraries can't "depend" on static libraries. They have to be self-contained. You can link the static libraries with with dynamic libraries and then omit the static ones from the rest of the project, because they will already be available in the dynamic library. But if you have cross, or multiple, dependencies, then you may need to run everything as dynamic libraries.

I understand, eventually most of the software providers are going to release ARM based version, but how long I have to wait? Those are all 3rd party products. You will have to ask the developers. Is Rosetta 2 good enough to handle most of the software written for x86 architecture to run in M1 ? Yes. However, there are some additional security requirements for the new Apple Silicon chips. In the past, those open-source projects have treated those as merely "suggestions". And by "past", I mean "for years". In some cases, they now have only a few months to learn a lot of basic Mac development techniques.

There are a number of methods to load from a URL or data and supply a specific base URL for relatively-referenced resources on the page.

Perhaps HEIC is lossless after all. What is happening is that when an HEIC destination writes the image to disk, it resizes the image by one pixel. It actually crops one pixel on the bottom and left. You would only know it if you had added a noticeable, 1 pixel border, which I had done to debug. Obviously, a one-pixel resize is going to remove any losslessness. One thing you can do is manually shrink the image by one pixel width, and two pixels high, shifting the image up by one pixel. Then it won't crop any of the image. Of course, now you've done two one-pixel resizes, but at the least the geometry will now be correct. Apparently someone at Apple already knew that because Preview seems to do that double-resize too. But at least HEIC is still useable for reading and for low-resolution previews.

I'm seeing the same problem. I had been using Catalina to do all of my official builds, but for various reasons I wanted to try it with Big Sur this time. I had noticed problems when exporting Developer ID builds. Every other export would fail on my quick look plug in. I guess I have to re-write my quicklook plugins, eh?

Yes, I mean trusted by Apple. What I have seen with experimentation is that when I sign with some TSA other than that of Apple's then Authority=(unavailable) is shown in signature, that’s the reason I'm not sure it will work. Basically, I'm exploring the option of signing artifacts with other TSA in case Apple's TSA is down. I doubt that Apple, or any reasonable company or organization, would trust anyone other than themselves. I have seen people try to justify a custom timestamp based on the fear that Apple's server goes down. But Apple is one of the biggest companies in the world, would you be able to find some other service that is more reliable? And what is the risk of a failure on Apple's part? And what is the cost of failure on Apple's part? By this I mean, how likely is Apple's server to go down and how long would it stay down? Also, can there be any unforeseen issues after signing? This is exactly what I am worried about, the unforeseen issues. Basically if there is slight possibility of any of the above issues then it becomes no-go for me but then it makes me wonder why is there an option to specify TSA in codesign command.  There is always a possibility of failure. In fact, there is always an absolute guarantee of failure. It is only a question of when. Are you going to find some other service that has a lower possibility of failure than Apple? And what additional risks or costs are you willing to spend for that (false) guarantee? As I understand it, the reason for this option is to allow signed software in an environment that does not have internet access. Such facilities typically have other, often physical, security mechanisms in place. In theory, you might be able to use a local timeserver in such an environment. But in any environment that has internet access, I can't think of any rational reason not to use Apple's servers. Think of it this way. If you do something funky and it breaks, that's on you. You bear sole responsibility for any and all damages. No one will remember or notice if your software was functional during some Apple outage. If there were a widespread Apple outage, some other cascading failure would likely prevent your software from working anyway. But if you accept the Apple defaults and it breaks, that's on Apple. No one will blame your company or software. A few haters might say that you shouldn't have trusted Apple, but haters should be ignored. You will never be able to satisfy them no matter what you do.

You should probably open a DTS ticket for this. It looks like you have some low-level kernel operations that are not working. Those are very difficult to do correctly.

You have installed some 3rd party software called "sentinel" that is interfering with the operating system at a very low level. I don't know if this is malware or, even worse, anti-malware. But that is definitely the cause.

What do you mean by "library"? You could have a static archive library that would directly link into your executable like any other object code. You could have a framework, which is a fancy wrapper around a dynamic library, that you would specify under General > Frameworks and Libraries. This framework would automatically be bundled with your app. If you have an Xcode workspace with both app and framework targets, then this is how it is all supposed to work. You could also have a dynamic library. I think you could also specify this under General > Frameworks and Libraries. I've never used this option as it is problematic for many reasons. Another option is to install your dynamic library and/or framework separately into ~/Library/Frameworks or /Library/Frameworks (or some other location) and specify all the correct settings so that your app can find it. Again, this is problematic for many reasons.

Obviously clang does support the architecture. It just doesn't support that flag on arm.

It sounds like you are in the wrong forum, possibly the wrong web site. When I read your post, this is what I see: blah, blah, 3rd party, blah, buzzword, blah errSecInternalComponent Command CodeSign failed with a nonzero exit code We're using: something something else something I've never heard of and sounds really bad but same account to build with blah, blah, blah People here would be happy to dig into those two items that make sense. Do you have a crash log or something that someone could look at? Maybe a command invocation and full stdout/stderr? Otherwise, nobody has any idea about those 3rd party tools and how they interact with Xcode and each other. In truth, it sounds like some kind of docker-fuelled, deep-stack, tensor-flow AI typescript pipeline. This is not our world.

You should probably file a bug report. It looks like they installed the wrong certificate for that service.

The App Sandbox has no boxes checks or files selected, on the signing&capabilites for the target. Those checkboxes and options under App Sandbox are exceptions to the sandbox's restrictions. Since none of those are checked, that means you are running under the highest level of restriction. Your app will not be able to access ~/Documents at all as long as "User Selected File" is still set to "none". If you want to turn off the sandbox, look in the upper, left corner of the App Sandbox area. You will see an "x" button that you can click to turn off the sandbox entirely. PS: If you want to post code in the future, make sure to use the "Code block" button in the forum toolbar. Otherwise, the forum software will scramble your code. Even so, you should carefully review that code. It looks fragile.