[OS X TeX] TeXShop-2.10beta

[Gerben Wierda]

On Jun 6, 2006, at 03:35, Adam R. Maxwell wrote:

>
> 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?).

Size of a ppc+x386 binary is roughly double the size of either (x86  
used to be somewhat larger in the past, I haven't checked recently)

>>> 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...
>
> Adam
>
> ------------------------- 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/
>
>

------------------------- 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/