dont remeber off the top of my head, but i didnt need to change the ldflags, just had to set the sdk path like you did, i will have to look at my build script to tell you for sure.
Robert Babiak Life, baa I will worry about when it is done! > On Apr 4, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Hervé Coatanhay <herve.coatan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am having trouble building an installer on Mac OS X 10.9, (I had to > change build-installer.py to change LDFLAGS). > > @Robert Did you build the last installer on Mavericks with XCode 5.1? > Did you do anything special ? My command line is: > > ./build-installer.py > --sdk-path=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk/ > --dep-target=10.8 --universal-archs=intel > > And I had to remove this from LDFLAGS: > -syslibroot,/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.8.sdk > > I grabbed the source from > https://bitbucket.org/stackless-dev/stackless and trie to build from > 2.7-slp branch. > > I'm thinking it is too much changes already just to build an > installer, I must do something wrong. > > Cheers > Hervé > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:53 PM, Filip M. Nowak <stackl...@oneiroi.net> wrote: >> Hi there, >> >>> On 03.04.2014 15:28, Hervé Coatanhay wrote: >>> Hi FIlip, >>> Both MacOS installer and homebrew use the framework-approach. This >>> left prefix-approach for people that feels like hacking around IMHO. >> >> "hackishness" of prefix-approach is a matter of open discussion I would >> say. I must admit that I used to prefix-based way (and it is extensively >> used in many POSIX OSes packaging systems) but I agree that for Mac OS X >> framework thingy is more proper. >> >>> For Homebrew, it might be as simple as creating a "keg only" Stackless >>> Formula provided by a "Tap" on github. >>> >>> Concerning MacOS Installer, as I understand it, we're facing the >>> following choice: >>> >>> - provide a Stackless installer which override official CPython >>> installer (the choice made so far) >>> - change build-script.py to change the "framework name" >> >> I would go for the second option (with installer) - but again, it's just >> me. This would be less confusing, easier and probably safer for packager >> himself :) . At the end what's the goal? Basically - to provide usable >> and nice enough instance of Stackless for Mac OS x? If so this would do. >> >>> Does it sum it up well ? >> >> Absolutely. >> >>> Hervé >>> >>>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Filip M. Nowak <stackl...@oneiroi.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> (...) >> >> All the best, >> Filip >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Stackless mailing list >> Stackless@stackless.com >> http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > Stackless@stackless.com > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless _______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list Stackless@stackless.com http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
