[OS X TeX] TeXMaker 1.3 Universal Binary
Adam R. Maxwell
amaxwell at mac.com
Thu Mar 9 16:31:41 CET 2006
On Mar 9, 2006, at 04:33, Bruno Voisin wrote:
>> Apparently this reflects somewhat the two possible views one can
>> have on the issue - the nice, "Mac-like" and the, maybe a little
>> more ugly appearing, "*nix"-way of using MacOSX. Finally I think
>> that the Qt-framework does not "modify" the MacOSX behaviour (nor
>> does a library like gsl, or other scietific lib which come from a
>> *nix background). Frameworks are the "real" MacOSX-way of doing
>> it, aren't they?
>
> Yes, provided that's documented as you do. Only problem can be when
> other applications are installed which also rely on the same
> framework but don't install it because it's already there. Then the
> user removes the first application, then the framework, and
> suddenly the second application doesn't work any longer. And if you
> want to keep track of all dependencies, version mismatches and the
> like, you end up with a whole porting infrastructure à la
> DarwinPorts or Fink, I imagine!
I think versioning/dependencies are the main reason that shared
frameworks on Mac OS X aren't used that much, beyond the system
ones. OmniGroup ships their frameworks inside the application
bundle, which wastes disk space...but allows OmniOutliner 2 and
OmniOutliner 3 to coexist and function on the same system, even
though they are linked with (possibly) incompatible versions of the
frameworks. FWIW, I prefer the Mac way: everything should be
installed via drag-and-drop if possible, and easily relocatable by
the same means.
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/
More information about the macostex-archives
mailing list