[KDE/Mac] How to deploy KDE Applications on Mac OS X
bernhard at intevation.de
Thu Sep 30 20:30:30 CEST 2010
On Monday 23 August 2010 14:57:26 Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > Did you manage to read the packaging discussion thread (titled
> > "Developing KDE on Mac")?
> I've seen, but not fully digested it yet. I'll hope I'll get to it soon,
> feel free to ping me again if that takes too long.
Okay, this was on monster thread to read...
> > I raised some concerns there that I'd like to raise with you:
> > - There's a few people doing work on this but we're all taking different
> > approaches and not discussing it on the mailing list. Specifically, you
> > and Sjors seem to have the same approach but one of you is using Macports
> > and the other Fink.
After reading the thread, I tend to agree with Sjors' suggestion:
Create a graphical frontend to fink or macports and
as a second step make it possible
to derive single installer look-a-likes from it.
> > - Most non-technical OSX users expect a .app bundle distributed in a .dmg
> > and using Sparkle for updates. CPack provides the capability for fixing
> > up the dependencies in a .app bundle and creating a DMG.
I agree with you that most people will prefer a single installer. My knowledge
about the different technical properties of packaging for Mac OS X is quite
low. So I cannot help judging the various options in technical detail.
I expect the fink/macports frontends to be one grade less comfortable
even when bundled to an integrated installer.
Given that Free Software on the Mac needs to catch on and that it has a
different characteristic than the proprietary software offerings on that
platform, I guess it would be okay that Mac Users will have to be confronted
with a package manager GUI, even when they only want a few application. I
guess they will end up with more, so this really promotes Free Software.
Nevertheless once we have established a significant Mac user base, I think
that now doing the rest of the polish into .dmgs, .apps, .pkg with Sparkle
or whatever, will be much more attractive compared to the other improvement
possibilities. We even might find funding for it.
> During the contract we found out that our effort is not large enough to
> fully solve the binary, source and update distribution mechanism of a full
> blown product on Mac OS X. So we wanted to join the initiative that is
> closest about solving this, including the dependency management for Free
> Software on Mac OS X. MacPort seemed to be the best solution at that time
> according to an analysis by Emanuel. This could have changed over the last
> 9 months or so.
(I had hoped that Emanuel would have jumped in here explaning why we made the
choice of macports.) In the end I do not care if it is macports of fink, it
just have to fullfil the requirements. One requirement I have is that it must
be possible to at least bundle everything together so it is one download
and that it must alternatively allow to install binaries. We did not fully
testrun this for macports, but it seemed to me that there are possibilities
Managing Director - Owner: www.intevation.net (Free Software Company)
Deputy Germany Coordinator: fsfeurope.org. Coordinator: Kolab-Konsortium.com.
Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, Osnabrück, DE; AG Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-mac/attachments/20100930/1d754deb/attachment.sig
More information about the kde-mac