On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Simon Urbanek wrote:
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've never had any confusion at that level of using R.app or R64.app.
I was really grateful that R64 was there when I needed it. There was
some confusion about package availability for the 64-bit version a
couple of years ago, but that seems to have faded away.
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.
I don't read system commands very well. On my laptop with a hardware
restriction to 4GB will that load R64.app if it's not needed?
Cheers,
Simon
_______________________________________________
R-SIG-Mac mailing list
[email protected]
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT
_______________________________________________
R-SIG-Mac mailing list
[email protected]
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac
