[OS X TeX] TeXShop-2.10beta

Adam R. Maxwell amaxwell at mac.com
Tue Jun 6 03:35:19 CEST 2006

On Jun 5, 2006, at 14:02, Gerben Wierda wrote:

> On Jun 5, 2006, at 13:35, Maarten Sneep wrote:
>> On 5 Jun 2006, at 11:57, Peter Dyballa wrote:
>>> Am 05.06.2006 um 01:22 schrieb Richard Koch:
>>>> A beta release of TeXShop 2.10 can be obtained at
>>> The engines can be made 'universal' by letting them invoke /usr/ 
>>> local/teTeX/bin/`uname -p`-apple-darwin-current/<utility> or by  
>>> extending the search path with  /usr/local/teTeX/bin/`uname -p`- 
>>> apple-darwin-current.
>> Somehow, I think these instructions to build a fat^H^H^HUniversal  
>> binary will give a more user friendly experience.
>> http://developer.apple.com/opensource/ 
>> buildingopensourceuniversal.html
>> From what I can see: all Jonathan has to do is
>> lipo -arch i386 /usr/local/teTeX/bin/i386-apple-darwin-current/ 
>> xetex \
>>      -arch ppc  /usr/local/teTeX/bin/powerpc-apple-darwin-current/ 
>> xetex \
>>      -create -output xetex
>> to create a new fat binary.
> Correct.
>> Now, it seems that gwTeX uses separate binaries at the moment, and  
>> simply adds the correct architecture to the path, rather than  
>> letting the OS figure things out at run-time.
> I follow TeX Live standards. I could produce fat binaries for TeX  
> of course, but that would remove the choice for downloading only  
> one architecture (in expert  mode of the TeX i-package)

What is the approximate size difference between universal binary and  
single architecture?  Presumably people aren't using gwTeX on a  
server that also has binaries for non-Apple systems (isn't that the  
point of the arch-specific path?).

>> I don't know how the rest of TeX is handled (in TeXShop), but it  
>> seems to me that XeTeX and gwTeX should be treated as similarly as  
>> possible. A loger term solution that I can see is to (eventually)  
>> create a universal set of tools.
> It is a difficult problem. Having universal binaries is easier for  
> Dick but removes the download-only-what-you-need option.
> What is the community's opinion?

I'd go with what's easiest for you, but I think the universal  
approach is less hassle for users, and more likely to be robust (say  
if you're copying preference files between machines).  Of course,  
you'll never get a really Mac-like ease of use from something with as  
many arcane path and environment settings as TeX...


------------------------- Info --------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
          & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/

More information about the macostex-archives mailing list