On Apr 1, 2006, at 12:45 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Ruby would need to be installed separately. Like using fink or apt- get. That's too much to put into the package. Python is also not included in Pd-extended tho [py] is.
...no, we'll be using a specific version of an as-yet-unreleased ruby that can be packaged in the pd-extended bundle, much the same as we already do with tcl/tk...
That being said, there are still changes in Apple's Quartz API that
...to be pedantic, we aren't touch the "Quartz" API: it's more carbon/cocoa...
makes the port to OSX 10.4 difficult. We are still getting errors when trying to compile it. Some fixes have been made to the CVS, but still, there are constants that have the same name than GF constants in Quartz. (or something like that, got to get back to the code to see exactly what) So, do you guys think that a GF version that has been compiled on OSX 10.3 would work on OSX 10.4 ? This could be a dirty solution to these littles bugs. Otherwise, let's keep chasing the name clashes.
Something compiled on 10.3.9 (.9 is important!) should work fine on 10.4, I don't think Apple broke things that badly. Things compiled on 10.4 generally work on 10.3.9 too.
Then, if we finally get it to work on OSX 10.4, would it be a problem to incude Ruby 1.9 in the package ? If so, it would mean that we would expect our users to install Ruby 1.9 from CVS in the command-line and to set their PATH accordingly. That's a bit ankward in my opinion.
Ruby really should be installed separately. There must be installer packages somewhere. Ruby 1.8 is already included in Mac OS X.
...see above...
jamie