Re: OS X Binary

[Philip S. <ps...@ag...>]

On Wed, 2002-06-26 at 12:53, John Marshall wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:37:17PM +0000, Philip Streck wrote:
> > 2: Packaging: As a MacOS X user I really don't liken to fink all that, I
> > would rather see a .pkg package that you could install easily. 
> 
> Interesting.  So what's a .pkg?  Any interesting URLs at
> developer.apple.com (or whatever) that you can point us to?
> 
check out
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Essentials/SystemOverview/InstallIntegrate/Installing__Application.html for some useful info on pkgs.

> What sort of a package is GCC on MacOS X?  Or other similar tools?  GDB?
> Is it configured in a "usual Unix" way -- /usr, /usr/share, etc -- or in
> some funky /Applications, bundles, etc MacOS X way?
> 
well gcc binarys are installed within /usr/ the usual unix way, but all
of your examples and non command line tools are installed /Developer

> > 3: Building: IMHO we should have a set of patches that go on top of the
> > existing packages to make the necessary changes for the os x build
> > process.  That way the only difference in building prc tools would be
> > applying another set of patches.
> 
> That organisation would mean that MacOSX-prc-tools would be in the
> position of being a downstream package from a hostile prc-tools
> upstream.
> 
> 	1.  we're not hostile
> 	2.  that's not an enviable position to be in
> 
> Why is this better than having MacOS X support in the existing prc-tools
> patches?  Is this suggestion just a way of leapfrogging MacOS X's GCC 3.x
> prerequisite, which is currently not met by prc-tools?
> 
>     John
> 

good point, i'm passive :)

-- 
Philip Streck
Information Systems
Akron General Medical Center