It would still not be really usable -- no OSX specific applications would be supported... even the ApplicationsItemSource would look for .desktop files, instead of .app folders :)
On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 2:55 AM, Chris Szikszoy <[email protected]>wrote: > > It would be great if we could get someone to make OSX binaries. Do > you have any expertise in this area Patrick? > > -Chris S. > > On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Patrick Tulskie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Ok great. I'll have to give it a shot this weekend then. I'm just > > tired of how buggy and slow Quicksilver has been I'm curious as to > > whether or not this will be a good replacement. > > > > On Mar 27, 12:38 am, David Siegel <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Yes, a few have built and run Do on OS X. It should be pretty easy to do > >> these days. Grab Macports, Mono, and chase dependencies until it runs. > >> > >> David > >> > >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Patrick Tulskie > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Just out of curiosity - has anyone tried to build Do on OS X? Are > >> > there any reasons why it wouldn't build? My initial interest in Do > >> > was to get it working on Windows, but since I haven't used a Windows > >> > box in months, I've kind passed on that idea. > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "GNOME Do" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/gnome-do?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
