Developer forums (C::B DEVELOPMENT STRICTLY!) > Development
Will patches to compile and link C::B against wxWidgets 2.7.1 be accepted?
takeshimiya:
--- Quote from: afb on November 01, 2006, 11:03:50 pm ---Here are the file sizes, for your amusement:
42M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.tar
18M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.tzo
14M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.tgz
13M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.tbz
14M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.zip
8.9M CB_20061101_rev3164_macx86.7z
--- End quote ---
:lol:
--- Quote from: afb on November 01, 2006, 11:03:50 pm ---"Better" maybe, but it's not the Mac way... :-)
--- End quote ---
There are apps out there that are bundle but separated by archs,
--- Quote from: afb on November 01, 2006, 11:14:53 pm ---Hmm, the Xcode 2.4.1 security update weighs in at.... 932.2MB.
So I don't think 13M or 14M will make a difference to Mac users. :-D
--- End quote ---
I think it's totally ok for stable releases but,
it's a bit too much for nightly builds, I don't know if you, but maybe other will be setting up nightly builds, this means everyday downloads,
and also accounting that berlios still doesn't support resume, there are people that still cares about the size, which are probably still on dial up or at a univ/work capped connection
Thanks for the upload! I'm going to test as soon as I can :)
afb:
--- Quote from: takeshi miya on November 01, 2006, 11:30:54 pm ---There are apps out there that are bundle but separated by archs,
--- End quote ---
Actually it was a bit of fuss to "lipo" it together, so taking it apart would be easy...
--- Quote ---I think it's totally ok for stable releases but,
it's a bit too much for nightly builds, I don't know if you, but maybe other will be setting up nightly builds, this means everyday downloads,
and also accounting that berlios still doesn't support resume, there are people that still cares about the size, which are probably still on dial up or at a univ/work capped connection
--- End quote ---
The zip is 8M when "thin". But then I need a second one for PPC, and educate people which is which and so on. The "fat" (now: Universal) binary is at least very simple to use...
I think the MacPorts option would be better if you are bandwidth challenged.
--- Code: ---6.3M codeblocks-1.0_0+macosx.i386.tgz
--- End code ---
afb:
One thing that we could do, is link it to a /Library/Frameworks/wxWidgets.framework
The plus side of that is that it also provides the developer files and not just the libs ?
The down side is that we would have to make such a wx framework,
and make sure that it is the right version and has the right patches...
takeshimiya:
--- Quote from: afb on November 02, 2006, 12:01:54 am ---The down side is that we would have to make such a wx framework,
and make sure that it is the right version and has the right patches...
--- End quote ---
Actual versions come with 2.5.x I think, and Leopard will come with 2.8 out of the box if nothing goes wrong,
however users of previous Mac OS X will be not benefited; and this will also mean to have different packages for pre 10.5 and post 10.5
afb:
There is no wxWidgets.framework. Tiger ships with wxPython 2.5 - as libraries.
I think that Leopard would be better off with wxPython 2.7 as libraries too, but...
If they want to rename wx 2.7.3 as 2.8.0 to include it with that OS that's OK,
but it probably just means that we have to provide 2.8.1 as a package instead ?
I have built such a framework though, it just hasn't been officially included.
For details you can see some scribblings at http://www.algonet.se/~afb/wx/
Haven't decided if it's going to be the "pretty" wxWidgets.framework or the
more "usable" wx.framework. But I guess the wx crew will ultimately decide.
SDL has the same problems when running on Mac OS X.
"To framework, or not to framework, that is the question..."
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version