Yes, this is a requirement for .safariextz files to work. The build task create binaries, normal grunt builds dev folders (that can be symlinked). FF doesn't require signing for it to actually be install able. Safari does.

Ultimately FF should also be signed so we can host this on dreditor.org and auto update. But that's a separate issue. 

Typos courtesy of Siri

> On May 11, 2014, at 9:34 AM, sun <notifications@github.com> wrote:
> 
> In Gruntfile.js:
> 
> > -      args: [
> > -        grunt.template.process('<%= pkg.name %>'),
> > -        grunt.template.process(process.cwd() + '/build/<%= pkg.name %>.safariextension'),
> > -        process.cwd() + '/release/safari'
> > -      ],
> > -      fallback: -255
> > -    },
> > -    function (error, result, code) {
> > -      if (0 !== code) {
> > -        grunt.log.errorlns(result.stdout);
> > -        grunt.log.errorlns(result.stderr);
> > -      }
> > -    });
> > -  });
> > +  grunt.registerTask('build:safari', 'Builds the Safari extension.',
> > +    ['exec:build_safari_ext']);
> Wondering whether this shouldn't actually be part of release:safari? Do you need to sign a .safariextension if you just want to load a local dev build into your local Safari browser?
> 
> I guess that clarifies your recent question/suggestion of whether we shouldn't rename (or split) the current build tasks... — FF just compiles + builds/archives, Chrome does the same, only build:safari additionally tries to sign the extension to prepare it for a published release.
> 
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.