After upgrading from Xcode 7.3 to Xcode 8, I'm getting an error:
Provisioning profile "iOS Team Provisioning Profile: *" doesn't
support the Wireless Accessory Configuration capability.
May I know how to resolve this?
You should enable it in apple's developer portal.
Go to "App IDs" and edit your app.
Check the Wireless Accessory Configuration checkbox.
Cick Done
Now just regenerate your provisioning profile and rebuild/archive using newly generated profile.
1 apply for rights ： https://developer.apple.com/contact/network-extension/
2 check the Wireless Accessory Configuration checkbox in Xcode
3 selected Wireless Accessory Configuration when create Provisioning Profile
Go to the Target -> General -> Signing
Click on Automatically Manage Signing and choose a team Account.
press command+,
enter Accounts
re Download All Profiles.
Related
Xcode archives successfully using the latest - and correct - provisioning profile.
However, the Bots configured in Xcode Server still use an older profile.
This can be seen if one authenticates as xcodeserver user and navigates to ~/Library/MobileDevice/Provisioning Profiles.
Running security cms -D -i myuuid.mobileprovision confirms this.
Having tried reconfiguring a new Bot, restarting Xcode Server, deleting the old profile, and so on, nothing works.
How can we help Xcode 9 Server do what it promised, and use the latest provisioning profile from the Apple Provisioning Portal?
A dirty hack will work. This is assuming Xcode will correctly Archive using the correct profile. Unarchived the resulting .app file, then rename the embedded.mobileprovision file according to it's UUID, e.g.
myuuid.mobileprovision
Next, copy myuuid.mobileprovision to the ~/Library/MobileDevice/Provisioning Profiles folder.
Identify any older profiles linked to the same bundle identifier and delete. To play it safe, consider moving temporarily to ~/Desktop.
Finally, integrate the Bot, unarchive the resulting .app., and inspect to confirm creation expiry date, UUID, and UDID array are all as expected:
security cms -D -i embedded.mobileprovision
I am running kaa 0.10.0 on ubuntu 14. Since the outgoing email was not properly configured, I created many tenant admins. Is there a way to delete them?
I do not see the delete button as the doc http://docs.kaaproject.org/display/KAA/Administration+UI+guide
shows.
Thanks for help.
James
Looks like there is no option for the Kaa 0.10.0 release to delete a tenant admin. The documentation you referenced is for Kaa 0.9.0 (and prior) only. The Kaa 0.10.0 documenation is available here.
Also, please note the user types defined in Kaa. For example, to add, modify (or delete if that option is available) a tenant admin, you should sign in as Kaa administrator.
james800,
I suppose what you're referring to is "deleting tenant" instead of "deleting tenant admin"? If you're referring to deleting tenant admin, you can have a delete button after clicking on one of the tenant.
I now have an iPhone 5 that I want to use for development. I try to add provisioning profiles in Organizer but they are greyed out. Can't the same provisioning profile be used on multiple devices?
When I have Provisioning Profiles selected in Organizer for the new device, I click on the + symbol on the bottom left to add a provisioning profile. I navigate to the correct location of the profile and as I mention above, they are greyed out. There is no way to add it this way.
Linda
In Xcode organizer after selecting the device you able to find an option "Add to Portal".Then sign in with your valid apple developer account.Then Everything will be configured automatically.
Linda, the same provisioning profile can be used on multiple devices.
In your case, the chances of the provisioning profile being greyed out may be because:
The device which you are using is not registered under the provisioning profile you are trying.
Provisioning profile binds
Certificate
App ID
UDID of the device.
All the above 4 bind and work together.
provisioning profile can use to multiple device.
Your case because in your provisioning profile not included your iPhone 5 (UDID).
Please check in https://developer.apple.com/
add your UDID
Create New Provisioning Profile
Add your Provisioning Profile To XCode
Check in Organizer
I haven't really used the archive function under Xcode 3, but got used to it now in Xcode 4. So far I always used to have three or four build settings in all my projects: Debug, Distribution AdHoc and Distribution AppStore. Distr. AdHoc and AppStore were both copies of "Release" and only differed in regard to their provisioning profile selected for Codesigning (so essentially they were a thing of convenience, making sure I never sent the wrong person the wrongly signed build).
Now I noticed that Xcode asks me with which profile I would like to sign my build with whenever I export an archived build form the organizer, yet at the same time the build would also fail if the selected provisioning profile in the build settings was not valid. Are Xcode 4 archives provisioning profile independent from or are thy tied to a provisioning profile? How do you solve the "challenge" of having to build for AdHoc and AppStore without having too many build settings groups (switching the groups associated with the build schemes has become somewhat cumbersome in Xcode 4)?
Thanks!
in Xcode 4 if you archive an application it is signed with the provision profile that you have indicated to use under its build configuration. Most likely a settings that was carried over from an Xcode 3 project.
An archived app can be resigned with a different provision profile at a later time (though the organizer or command line), so in a way, yes they are independent of provision profile.
Two suggestions for managing building for AdHoc and AppStore:
1)
The first is taking advantage of Xcode 4 schemes, and creating a new schemes for AdHoc and AppStore
Under the Schemes Menu: Edit Scheme -> Duplicate Scheme, then under the Archive you can select your desired build configuration (AdHoc, AppStore, etc...), you can then name this scheme AdHoc, AppStore to match too. When you want to build for release just select the target scheme and it will sign it with the associated provision profile from the build configuration.
2)
Maintain 1 scheme, remove code signing from your build configurations, and code sign apps exclusively though the organizer after archiving.
I really need help here.
We are using CI build-process (Hudson) as an automated build system using Msbuild.
The CI run in Apache Tomcat 6 that run under the credentials of a domain user (not a local Windows user ).
Every time the CI try to build an InstallShield project (using isproj files) we get a license error message:
" C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : -7159: The product license has expired or has not yet been initialized. You must launch the IDE to configure the product license in order to proceed.
C:\Program Files\MSBuild\InstallShield\2010\InstallShield.targets(62,3): error : Exception Caught".
If I log in to the same machine with the same domain user credentials and build the InstallShield project there is a license and it is working well.
Adding the user to the local Users group doesn't help (no license).
Adding the user to the local Administrators group helps and it is working.
We do not want the user to be in the local Administrators group - for various reasons.
What do I need to do to make it work?
Do I need to add permissions to the use?
Help will be highly appreciated.
Gilad
Is your build calling isSaBld.exe or isCmdBld.exe? InstallShield changed their policy in 2010 so that the standalone build functionality (isSaBld) is only available with a top-tier license. In previous versions it was usable in Pro too. Maybe this has something to do with it?
We have a similar build system - Hudson in tomcat 6, IS2010, but with Ant scripts - and calling IsCmdBld.exe is working for us.
If you are using Hudson as a service, try running the service as an administrator. But you need to make sure the administrator succees to build the project from the InstallShield IDE first.
We do not want the user to be in the local Administrators group
To my knowledge there is no way around this requirement. InstallShield's product licensing runs low-level system checks that require that the running user be in the Administrators group to succeed. That's why when you start the InstallShield IDE the UAC prompt appears. That way they can verify that the license they granted you hasn't been moved to a different machine. Without being privy to exactly how they do this, imagine e.g. direct disk sector access, CPU serial number reads, hard drive firmware access, etc. You just can't do those things without Admin rights.
However to ensure that every build can be reproduced, a build machine should be sacrosanct, and access to it should only be granted to trusted build users. It's standard for them to be Administrators on the build machine.
Can you give more details about why you need to keep the user from being an Administrator? That would enable us to give you better input.