Macports is one (Linux-like) 3rd party solution. [ I try to
not use it, as it adds up a difficult to replicate component
to an otherwise clean system. You need to do sudo/admin, which
I also try to avoid. ]
Do you know nay other way to have gd, openssl and other developers
libs?
I haven't experimented with them on OSX yet,
so I cannot tell anything first hand.
No one said otherwise. The question is: why we want to push
this for hbrun, hbtest and hbmk default.
This comes from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/
Guidelines#Exclusion_of_Static_Libraries
Packages including libraries should exclude static libs as far as
possible (eg by configuring with --disable-static). Static libraries
should only be included in exceptional circumstances. Applications
linking against libraries should as far as possible link against
shared libraries not static versions.
<
True static almost doesn't exist in Linux anymore.
Try to run ldd <executable> and you'll see how many dependences it has
so for me having shared as default is normal.
To avoid it use -static.
I'm talking about OS X.
It's Linux's (or this specific distro's) problem how they
make their life more complicated, or more generically speaking
how they try to solve their specific problems for their specific
needs the best way.
And so far still no one could answer regarding any concerns
raised. (like installing a simple std app downloaded from the
net, moving around programs on a USB stick, or installing
something without impacting the base OS, needing admin/sudo
rights.). Maybe Linux/Fedora just simply ignores these, maybe
there is a solution I don't know, or maybe these issues are
irrelevant for some reasons I miss. Please enlighten me.
Linux is different probably because the line between
OS and "extensions" is very blurred, and this is probably so
because the OS is free and fully OSS and not controlled centrally.
OS X isn't Linux though, here, the lines between OS and non-OS
are perfectly clear.
Finally: someone please tell, what do I supply to the Linux
users when I'd like to ship a commercial application in the form
of a download package? Is there a standard format which would work
across all distros for let's say all kernels above 2.x.y? Naturally,
compiling from source isn't an option, or should I ship
obfuscated source code and let the end user the compiling?
Isn't that insane for non-technical users? How to do test & support
zillions of different possible environments, external lib versions
and combinations? Suppose Harbour 1.0 is shipped with all Linux
distros, should I then program my apps to not use anything above
that Harbour version? Or should I try to use > 1.0 features
using conditional compiling? If so, should also ship my .prg
sources in obfuscated form then? How?
Just to give a quick idea of the problem and one solution,
I've just downloaded Google Earth for Linux, and after I've
found out that the file GoogleEarthLinux.bin is a really a
script which needs to be started from terminal (guess
whether your mom / dad / gf / wife / sister could find this
out). Anyhow, it turns out - miracle - that there is about
50MB worth of _static libs inside_, plus the executable.
Is Google wrong?
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
