I vote to use current settings (static hbrun and -static
default for hbmk) when mpkg_tgz.sh is used. And shared
setting for both when mpkg_osx.sh (to be done). Also,
I vote to remove the self-extracting logic from mpkg_tgz.sh
for OSX, as this is a solution unknown on the OSX scene,
and makes it unnecessarily difficult to unpack it anywhere.
Above ensures that everyone who wishes to use an install
free Harbour on OSX, will have working package, and
everyone else who wishes to install it to standard
location, will get the slightly smaller and also working
shared solution.
OSX is not Linux or SunOS or HPUX (in fact it became
officially Unix just a few years ago). OSX is mainly
a desktop OS, this is the reason why actual bigger
crowd of human beings are using it, and I see no reason
to make it behave like export-systems and server orientated
Unix dialects should be copied, thus making life more
difficult for its users.
Anyway, with above solution, everyone can get what he
wants, and it's easy to decide by selecting the proper
binary package.
IOW, if someone wants to have a Unix-like experience,
please add an mpkg_osx.sh which creates an OSX .pkg
with proper installer.
hb* scripts will create shared binaries unless user will not
use -static or -fullstatic parameter just like in all other *nixes.
standard tools in binaries created by mpkg_tgz.sh will be linked with
shared harbour library so we will have very easy validation that final
installation is correct, there is no typos in library name or version/
subversion number (BTW this has to be still fixed in MacOSX builds),
destination path are in correct system directories, hb* scripts will
create working shared binaries and any other Harbour shared binaries
will also work. It's also very important confirmation for me that when
user reports problem with his own Harbour shared binaries I'm sure
that the problem is not on the harbour side directly and I do not have
to start build conditions what sometimes is hard when I do not have
regular access to given OS. Sometimes even such access does not help
because the differences can be related to customized installation.
It was a standard in all *nix like installations.
It's much simpler if user just have to unzip something,
so all the above complication is just skipped with no
possibility for error. Or, use the familiar .pkg format. If
we support a platform we should support it natively, I mean,
making our support job easier by forcing common rules for
all platforms isn't the way to go IMO. We should make users
happy, not ourselves.
I want to keep the old behavior compatible between *nixes without such
exceptions. Those of you who used to work with different *nixes knows
well how irritating are "small" differences between them and how
problems
they can create.
Reasons please. For an OSX user it's just as well irritating
to have something to be "installed" in an obligatory fashion.
I'm telling this as a Mac user since 2004.
I do not feel "MacOSX spirit". For me it's yet another *nix like
If you've never used it, why don't you want to listen to ppl
who have? OSX users have most probably chosen their platform for
a reason. These are different worlds.
#!/bin/sh
export HB_MK_STATIC=yes
export HB_TOOLS_STATIC=yes
./mpkg_tgz.sh
The default will be broken then, just like it is for 1.0.1.
Anyone who will want to use will be free to use it. Just like anyone
who prefers compatible behavior with other *nixes can use the same
scripts as for other *nixes. It's a free project and I do not see
any reason to forbid such possibilities.
I asked Viktor about it few times without success in last days.
I've probably missed these... what was the question?
So now I want to aks all of you to vote.
1. We should keep compatible between *nixes behavior for binaries
create
by standard build scripts giving MacOSX users alternative build
script
./mpkg_macosx.sh which will created static binaries
2. We should disable default support for shared binaries in MacOSX
builds
created by standard build scripts (current behavior after recent
Viktor's modification)
Shared lib _is still supported_, it's just not the default
when someone uses hbmk, and hbrun isn't dependent on it,
which means it works as a _standalone_ executable.
I'm voting for 1.
I propose almost the same with different names.
.tgz packages as .sh type of installation is nonexistent in
the OSX world. It should be .tgz, plus there should be a .pkg.
This is how it works on this platform, it's enough to just
look around. Harbour should follow OSX practices, instead
of trying to force other concepts.
"When in Rome", as Dave Pearson had told me around year 2000
on this very mailing list, when I was proposing common binary
naming rules for all platforms. Dave was very right then.
Names are also much better to follow the customs of the given
platforms, as this is what platform users expect.
.tgz on OSX is something you can just unpack an use, .pkg
is something you can install and use.
So my vote to no 3.
Brgds,
Viktor
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
