Hi.
I'm having a look at the MacOS 3.2.3 package of Octave and the structure of
it makes me wonder. Does it really need to look like that?
I'm specifically wondering about the search paths for the dynamic libraries
and why there's a flood of static libraries also in the package.
About the search paths: Shouldn't it be possible to contain all the
libraries in the application in a nicer way? Using "/tmp/deps-i386/" and a
shell script is not really the mac way of packaging things as far as I know
of.
Do you have a specific reason for avoiding "@executable_path/xx"? Does it
interfere with the ordinary build procedure or with how Octave functions,
like runtime loaded dylibs?
Anyhow. I think Octave.app is really nice but the package makes it a bit
problematic to use under certain circumstances I'd say.
To sum up:
- Would a more macish packing procedure interfere with Octaves
functionality in any way?
- The reason I ask is because I do know how to package applications on the
Mac but I know nothing about the structure of Octave... yet :)
I'd appreciate any assistance in this matter.
Thank you for your time
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefiting from Server Virtualization: Beyond Initial Workload
Consolidation -- Increasing the use of server virtualization is a top
priority.Virtualization can reduce costs, simplify management, and improve
application availability and disaster protection. Learn more about boosting
the value of server virtualization. http://p.sf.net/sfu/vmware-sfdev2dev
_______________________________________________
Octave-dev mailing list
Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
