Hi Przemek,
just copy the missing file from /lib to next to the executable,
and always use -static when using hbmk script.
Why??? In all *nixes dynamic linking is a base and static
is sth seldom used for some specific reasons.
Because in OS X such experience is simply unprecedented
in the user world, and because it gives _no_ advantage
_at all_ on this platform, which is 99.99% aimed for desktop
users. At the same time it makes the binaries simply unusable,
and broken out of the box. So, I'm not exactly sure this is what
users expect on this platform, at least I haven't heard of
any such Mac users in the last 5 years. In fact 99% of them
doesn't want to or have to know that there is such thing
as a .dylib, and I'm pretty sure they won't want to learn just
to run a Harbour based app.
And I believe it's completely wrong to require installation,
sudo/admin rights and all that crap to just make it possible
to _try Harbour_, or run a simple "hello world", or god
forbid have 2 versions installed in parallel (which is not
something exceptional for a developer). Let alone work with
a _portable_ environment. No, we rather save 1.5MB on disk
(or we target server-side users? hard to tell.).
Pls tell some advantages this gives, so far you seemed
to have just ignored any points raised in this regard. It'd
be really nice to know the reasons why you insist on this
shared/dynamic/dll thing on all platforms.
Also, what if I'd like to just copy my Harbour devl env to
an USB drive and move it around to another machine? This isn't
possible with Linux either, thanks to the shared feature, and
install-time hard wired lib path tricks.
If there is sth wrong with default harbour shared library name
or location in harbour-*.tar.gz then of course it should be fixed.
There is something definitely wrong, since it doesn't work,
and it never did.
BTW, I think we should rename the dynamic builds of our
supplied binaries to hbrun-dyn and hbtest-dyn, similarly
to Windows, and leave hbrun and hbtest to run standalone.
Please do not make anything like that. If you want to unify
the names then I suggest to remove static binaries from Windows
builds or call them as *-static.exe.
Have you ever seen such thing on Windows? BTW, I haven't
seen too many programs on Windows in the form of *-dll.exe
either. On Windows - nowadays maybe except the Cygwin world
of horror -, apps are expected to just run with as few .dll
dependencies as possible. All of those are just a way to
make programs get screwed on some environments.
All in all OS X and Windows is not Linux, and there is no
point in forcing Linux standards onto them IMO.
Brgds,
Viktor
[ BTW and slightly off, both Linux and Windows could take long
lessons from OS X when it comes to _desktop software_ installation,
those other two simply cannot get it right. I had to fall back
and recommend XP over Linux on Asus EEE PC, because custom software
installation (= Google Earth and say a bittorrent client) is just
way too difficult - if possible - for an average user on Linux.
No wonder it still couldn't catch up. ]
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
