Will binaries built in 10.6 still run in 10.5?
Harry van der Wolf
hvdwolf at gmail.com
Mon Oct 4 11:36:53 PDT 2010
2010/10/4 Brandon S Allbery KF8NH <allbery at kf8nh.com>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On 10/3/10 21:21 , Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> > Thanks, Ryan. I suppose I will need to find someone who has a 10.5
> > installation to do a sanity check for me before I release any binaries
> > tagged with "OS X 10.5 and newer".
> Distributing binaries built via MacPorts tends to be a bad idea: not only
> do you need to make sure to distribute the files from any dependencies as
> well as your binary, but the result will likely interfere with an installed
> MacPorts or Fink on the installer's machine.
No, that's not true. An application that is to be distribibuted and which is
a true Mac bundle is always "self-contained". It should only be linked
outside the bundle in case of system libraries.
In the case of the hugin bundle and the avidemux bundle, the bundles
contains lots and lots of libraries and frameworks where the linker paths
are "rerouted" to paths inside the bundle. This is exactly where the
"install_name_tool" on OSX is for and what XCode itself uses extensively.
This mechanism is exactly there to prevent the interference with an
installed MacPorts or Fink or whatever installation. If you check graphical
applications for example you will see that they all contain jpeg, tiff, png
libraries and in case of QT applications the QT frameworks as well. This
causes a lot of redundancy but it also enables you to build a truly portable
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the macports-users