I have just purchased a PowerBook, so I will be working on the OS X side of things a lot in the future. I definitely have an interest in being a/the OS X package maintainer, but it will probably be a slow ramp up since I am currently in grad school and it takes up lots of my time.
On Friday, Dec 6, 2002, at 13:31 America/New_York, chris clepper wrote:
why even bother with a packaging system for the binary? how about this for an install on OSX:
We should use a packaging system because that is the way most people install software. As you mentioned, the average Mac user will expect such things. I could see doing pd in a .dmg style package with a README and the pure-data.app which the user copies to their Applications folder. This would be pretty easy to deal will, with everything related to pd going in the pure-data.app folder.
We could emulate your debian approach--how does that lay out files for externals (and their associated source, help, and other files)?
why emulate debian at all? it's not debian it's OSX. if anything it should more closely resemble the win32 version.
The other idea for a OS X package for pd is a fink package (http://fink.sf.net). It uses the debian package tools so it should be an easy port from the debian packages that Günter is working on. A fink package could also install a pure-data.app in Applications for the non-power users. The fink X11 packages do this, for example, and it works quite well.
Ideally, I think there would be both package types, the .dmg/.app package for the standard Mac user, and the fink package for the command line user.
.hc
cgc
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.kug.ac.at http://iem.kug.ac.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-dev