Rich Cook wrote:
> this sounds more like a rant against fink's habit of putting things in /sw
> instead of /usr/local... if fink put things in /usr/local, you'd have a
> pretty "vanilla" arrangement, no?
Not exactly. The problem with fink is that you can't guarantee that it
exists on any particular box. The same thing would happen no matter if you
had it install things in /sw or /usr/local. The same would be true for
DarwinPorts.
What Bill Northcott was suggesting instead was:
> >Darwin/MacOS X has really neat ways of letting you package everything
> >you need into an application bundle or a Framework and not trample on
> >anything else in the system, which does not suck.
In that way, you'd carry all dependent libraries inside your own Framework
or bundle and wouldn't have to worry about external dependencies.
While I like this solution for the most part, I see are three potential
problems:
1) You start bloating the disk. If 10 different binaries contained the VTK
libraries, for instance, in their bundles, you end up taking up 10 times
the disk space that you otherwise would need.
2) You start bloating memory. I presume that Darwin wouldn't know that the
10 individual VTK libraries are actually the same thing, and would load
separate copies into memory at each binary invocation.
3) I don't know how this works for regular UNIX binaries that aren't
packaged in a bundle. I supposed you could still use the Framework
method and link against that, but I am just ignorant about how that would
work.
-Sean
__
email@hidden
925-422-1648
_______________________________________________
scitech mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/scitech
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
