On Dec 14, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Timothy Bates wrote: > > On 14 Dec 2011, at 4:24 PM, Adam Strzelecki wrote: >>> In addition, there is no benefit in creating universal binaries, since they >>> are very Darwin-specific and bring no benefit in this context. >> >> There's a huge benefit of doing that. I do develop Mac apps, and FAT >> binaries and libs makes the other apps referring to them to refer to single >> file path regardless of architecture. So this is benefit for developers. >> Another benefit is for Mac users, that they run single app regardless if >> they run on PPC, i386 only Intel (first Intel Macs ?!) or latest 64-bit Macs. > > > I’ll second that: It makes AppleScripting easier too: Calling “R.app” always > works, instead of every user having to customise scripts with their app > version R64.app vs R.app >
That is fair enough. Do other users have an opinion either way? > I work around this by deleting one binary and renaming R64 to R.app > You can simply run lipo -create /Applications/R.app/Contents/MacOS/R \ /Applications/R64.app/Contents/MacOS/R \ -o /Applications/R.app/Contents/MacOS/R That will create the 3-way universal R.app as discussed. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ R-SIG-Mac mailing list [email protected] https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
