[wx-dev] Creating a MacOS X Framework

[Anders F Björklund]

Vadim Zeitlin wrote:

> AFB> I think that most people on Mac use Xcode rather than Make, and 
> those
> AFB> that use autoconf/make probably want the UNIX libraries rather 
> than
> AFB> frameworks.
>
>  I agree that people _using_ the framework would use Xcode. But normal
> users like this won't need to build the framework if we distribute the
> official version of it. And for us it's more convenient to be able to 
> build
> it remotely and so using command line tools is more convenient (as 
> usual ;-)

Well, you could use "xcodebuild" if you just want a batch build.

> AFB> It would be a good thing if both the Xcode projects and the
> AFB> autoconf/make built the same libraries
>
>  This is absolutely required, indeed. Isn't it the case already?

Except for slightly different configuration and library naming,
as mentioned earlier. I don't think they make binary equivalents ?

> AFB> Even nicer would be if the Xcode projects could be generated
> AFB> automatically, but that would first require a major new feature 
> for
> AFB> Bakefile - though  great.
>
>  Yes, Xcode backend is sorely lacking. But it's another topic.

I meant it more like: "maybe not spend any effort making manual Xcode
projects, instead they will eventually be generated by Bakefile"...

> AFB> >  You'd also probably need to symlink some other things, e.g. 
> wxstd.mo
> AFB> > and wxwin.m4.
> AFB>
> AFB> Then again, if you want to support those you probably want UNIX 
> install
>
>  I could be wrong but I thought that we'd distribute *only* the 
> framework
> for OS X. And so it should include everything necessary for both Xcode
> builds using framework as such and for command line builds. Maybe this 
> is
> impossible for some reason but if it is indeed possible then I'd really
> prefer to do it like this. Having one distribution is always better 
> than 2.

It's possible to set it up with symbolic links, if that is indeed 
desired.

I was more thinking of it being "two different cultures", kinda like 
how the
Windows compilation differs from the MinGW compilation (on that other 
OS) ?

> AFB> And it would probably require the build scripts and Xcode 
> templates
> AFB> and other things to be written first, before it being considered ?
>
>  Well, what do you mean by "being considered"? We consider it right 
> now, by
> discussing it, but to be useful it would indeed have to be written... 
> I'm
> afraid I might be missing the real point of this question.

What I meant was that it needs to be scripted and automated, not manual.
i.e. ideas are good, but actual scripts (like wxPython's) are better...

> AFB> But maybe 2.8.2 should have a /usr/local Installer, rather than a
> AFB> /Library/Frameworks/wx.framework ? Either way "works", your 
> call...
>
>  Sorry again but this is unclear to me as well.
>
>  In any case, this framework-ization of wx should be done in cvs HEAD, 
> at
> least initially, and not for 2.8.2.

Here I meant that if we want a binary installation for wxMac *today*,
then it would be much easier to just bundle /usr/local up into a PKG...

--anders