Re: MacPorts vs xquartz? (was Re: openmotif in macports dependencies and xquartz?)
Re: MacPorts vs xquartz? (was Re: openmotif in macports dependencies and xquartz?)
- Subject: Re: MacPorts vs xquartz? (was Re: openmotif in macports dependencies and xquartz?)
- From: Jeremy Huddleston <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 14:25:29 -0700
On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Philip J. Schneider wrote:
> Kinda highjacking my own thread here... :-)
>
> Considering Jeremy's feedback, I downloaded openmotif and all its dependencies, and so I can now build/run an X11 app using MacPorts-provided headers and libs. (That is, with only /opt/local-based paths specified in XCode.)
>
> A few questions:
>
> 1. In very general terms, how do the xquartz-provided X includes and libs differ from those provided by MacPorts? Pro/con on using one vs the other?
The ones in MacPorts are generally the latest versions.
The ones from XQuartz are also generally the latest version as of the release date.
The ones from Apple are a bit more dated / stable for consistency across major releases of the OS.
> 2. If one did want to distribute an X11 application that needed one or more X-related libraries not provided by the default system (e.g. openmotif), what would be the recommended approach? I might wish to assume that the users would not want to build up their own fink or MacPorts installation... :-)
I'd recommend using the host X11 libraries. Link your application (including extra libraries) against those, and ship everything not part of the system. You could use something like /opt/myapp as the prefix for building all your bits and just ship /opt/myapp (and probably place /opt/myapp/bin into $PATH via /etc/paths.h/myapp
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
X11-users mailing list (email@hidden)
This email sent to email@hidden