On Monday, Dec 20, 2004, at 05:04 Europe/Stockholm, Edward Agabeg wrote:
Both works. I tend to prefer the library kind instead of the bundle
kind. A bundle is a whole directory structure, which is fine for an
application but overkill for a simple QT component. Just create a
dynamic library and give it a .component extension. Works fine, but
Apple seems to prefer the bundle kind.
The reason for the bundle approach is that Mach-O binaries should not
contain a resource fork.
So, the bundled component is more technically correct. This does
remind me that I do need to update TN2012 to be more up to date as
it's still talking about building single Mach-O binaries.
Yes, I've noticed that 'strip' kills the resource fork. PB also has a
bug and doesn't apply the resource if you haven't touched the .r file.
I've solved both by having a script task that re-adds the resource fork
last in every build.
I like the library kind because it's a single file, and I can add an
icon. I never got the icon to work on bundles. And they tend to behave
like directories (even components from Apple do this!) which is ugly
and confusing.
Is the library component officially depreciated then, since it won't
work without a resource fork? Will support for those components go away
eventually?
/Roine
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
QuickTime-API mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quicktime-api/email@hidden
