de Icaza'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] MacOS packages.
Urs is correct, after some more digging, it's the 'way' to go. it's
going to take me a couple of days to cleanup my own system to get all
this built and tested (wish I had another machine for this... oh
well).
I've got
On Tue, 2004-03-02 at 16:58, Andy Satori wrote:
The problem with the second is that as far as I can tell, it would
require XCode projects to build the framework, and all the associated
dylibs. creating that project is going to be time consuming, and it
will require updating to be kept in
Andy Satori wrote:
Phase I:
A .pkg installer that installs Mono and Mcs to /usr/local/, with a
detailed description on how to properly set up the environment to use
/usr/local/bin. This package would use glib statically linked, to avoid
the need to also deploy glib to the users machine.
Hello,
Phase I:
A .pkg installer that installs Mono and Mcs to /usr/local/, with a
detailed description on how to properly set up the environment to use
/usr/local/bin. This package would use glib statically linked, to
avoid the need to also deploy glib to the users machine.
I
I agree, /Library has to be it's ultimate home, but right now, OS X is
a disaster regarding anything else. Fink uses /sw/ (huh?) darwinports
uses /opt/ and /opt/local/ (huh? further). I want to get everything
into the Framework under /Library, but the default build process right
now makes
-headers, and
that has a standard folder structure.
- URS C. MUFF
-Original Message-
From: Miguel de Icaza [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:43 PM
To: Urs C Muff
Cc: Andy Satori; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] MacOS packages.
Hello,
Well actually I
]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 7:43 PM
To: Urs C Muff
Cc: Andy Satori; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] MacOS packages.
Hello,
Well actually I agree that the shell scripts 'mono' and 'mcs' might
live in /usr/bin, but I would create a Framework and put it in
/System/Library/Frameworks
: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 7:21 AM
To: Urs Muff
Cc: 'Miguel de Icaza'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Mono-list] MacOS packages.
Urs is correct, after some more digging, it's the 'way' to go. it's
going to take me a couple of days to cleanup my own system to get all
this built and tested (wish
What about GTK# ? Is that Mono built with ICU, Andy ?
What are you doing with XCode ?
Erik
___
Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
At this point, I'm packaging GTK#, XSP and MOD_MONO as seperate
packages.
On the ICU (and GC) front, I currently build without either, but once I
get all the foundation in place, I'll add them.
With XCode, I currently have a C# language filter defined so that XCode
can parse the functions and
Andy,
The xcode stuff sounds great. Are you packaging 0.30.2 or a cvs build ?
I don't believe the ppc fix is in the releases yet. I have found that
many applications crash (Bus error) without it thus far (including a
lot of GTK# apps). Do you use the interpreter only ? Also, I believe
ICU is
At the moment, my primary installation is a CVS build. I did all the
dependancy work and checks on a clean OS X install (gotta love firewire
external drives) and it's using 0.30.2, as it's a quicker and easier
build process on a virgin machine.
Once I have the basics established, I'll bring
I replaced all references to mono to point to mint in the makefiles. If
you're using 0.30.x, you probably don't have the ppc fix and mcs.exe
(running with mono, the JIT) as well as other .exe processes (gapi
comes to mind) will die.
Erik
On Feb 25, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Elfred Pagán wrote:
This
This depends upon if you want a 'native' solution, or a Fink, or a
DarwinPorts solution. I personally prefer native solutions, as they
don't require any 3rd party tools, but it means packaging all of the
dependancies as well.
The native solution would be to build Package via the Apple
A native solution is definitely preferable. Even if Fink/DarwinPorts
solutions are available, there are many Mac developers who will be
interested in Mono who aren't interested in becoming familiar with Fink.
I would also be interested in helping get together a full installer.
However, if
OK, following up my own post and thoughts.
I went ahead and installed OS X 10.3 on an external FW drive, and just
built a ground up Mono install using pkg-config 0.15.0, glib-2.3.1,
gettext 0.11.5, and mono-0.30.1. And I'm getting ready to assemble the
.pkg files for those installations. The
Well actually I agree that the shell scripts 'mono' and 'mcs' might
live in /usr/bin, but I would create a Framework and put it in
/System/Library/Frameworks/MonoVM.Framework the same way as
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.Framework is placed (look at the
folder structure within the
Hello,
Well actually I agree that the shell scripts 'mono' and 'mcs' might
live in /usr/bin, but I would create a Framework and put it in
/System/Library/Frameworks/MonoVM.Framework the same way as
/System/Library/Frameworks/JavaVM.Framework is placed (look at the
folder structure within
Yes, you are correct, though I suspect that's going to require some
manual rebuilding of Mono itself.
Andy
On Feb 24, 2004, at 7:34 PM, Urs C Muff wrote:
Well actually I agree that the shell scripts 'mono' and 'mcs' might
live in /usr/bin, but I would create a Framework and put it in
19 matches
Mail list logo
