Re: [Tuxpaint-devel] Tux Paint 0.9.16 build for Mac OS X?

[Bill K. <nb...@so...>]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:59:15PM -0600, Martin Fuhrer wrote:
> Yes, I will look into making a Universal binary (PPC/Intel).  The SDL  
> libraries are already universal, so the frameworks just need to be  
> included in the TuxPaint application bundle.  I'll have to compile  
> libiconv, libintl, and libpng as universal libraries, and link those  
> in - provided this goes alright, we should be in business.  We have  
> to keep in mind that universal binary apps need to be compiled with  
> gcc 4, and gcc 4 compiled apps typically require Mac OS X 10.3.9 or  
> later to run (so a universal binary that also runs on 10.2.8 is most  
> likely not possible).

Hrm, would it be a huge pain to produce two versions of Tux Paint,
at least for a while?  One universal binary for 10.3.9 and above, and
a version that's more compatible with 10.2.8...?

I now realize how insanely expensive commercial operating systems can be,
and can understand parents and schools still using the older platforms.
(It still works, right!? :^) )

<snip>
> Okay, we'll see how things develop in the coming weeks...

:^)


<snip>
> I think it's better just to stick with the disk image DMG version.   
> PKG installers are useful if the program has multiple files that need  
> to be installed in various locations on a user's drive, but because  
> Tux Paint has been bundled into a single "file" (the "Tux Paint.app"  
> bundle) that the user can drag from the disk image to any location on  
> the hard drive, a PKG installer would be redundant.

Okay!  ("not broken, don't fix it"... sounds good :^) )


<snip>
> Sure, Matt, I'd be happy to show you through compiling the Tux Paint  
> in XCode. Perhaps we can discuss this in couple weeks, once I am able  
> to free up a bit more time.  You can also catch me on iChat  
> <mf...@ma...>

I've also seen Matthew on freenode. :)


-- 
-bill!
bi...@ne...
http://www.newbreedsoftware.com/