[OS X TeX] TeXMaker 1.3 Universal Binary

Bruno Voisin bvoisin at mac.com
Thu Mar 9 07:33:22 EST 2006

Le 9 mars 06 à 12:23, markus bongard a écrit :

> At least for the Qt-frameworks the situation  to get rid of the  
> components, is simple: just delete the Qt-folder; and, at least  
> from my side, I try to provide all information about for example,  
> what additional libraries are installed where, for the program- 
> installers provided on ATG.

Yes, when that information is provided that's perfectly nice.  
Unfortunately that's not always the case (more than once I've finally  
had to Ctrl-Click a .pkg file to inspect the content and read the  
pre- and postflight scripts, to know exactly what had been installed  
and where). And, even more unfortunate, Apple's Installer doesn't  
include any uninstall functionality (at least I've not been able to  
see it).

There are even worse situations, when an application considers it  
legitimate to modify other applications when being installed. When I  
installed Adobe Acrobat (the Pro version, which I unfortunately have  
to use), I located an install log at ~/Library/Receipts/ 
com.adobe.Acrobat.Pro/install.log which contained stuff like:

Copied from:  /Applications/Adobe Acrobat 7.0 Professional/Adobe  
Acrobat 7.0 Professional.app/Contents/Frameworks/AGLData_Full.framework
Copied to:  /Applications/Safari.app/Contents/Frameworks/ 

Thus the installation of Acrobat Pro installs frameworks within the  
Safari application itself, without notifying the user. Same goes,  
actually, with Adobe Reader. A good definition of evil (computer- 
wise, that is)!

> Apparently this reflects somewhat the two possible views one can  
> have on the issue - the nice, "Mac-like" and the, maybe a little  
> more ugly appearing, "*nix"-way of using MacOSX. Finally I think  
> that the Qt-framework does not "modify" the MacOSX behaviour (nor  
> does a library like gsl, or other scietific lib which come from a  
> *nix background). Frameworks are the "real" MacOSX-way of doing it,  
> aren't they?

Yes, provided that's documented as you do. Only problem can be when  
other applications are installed which also rely on the same  
framework but don't install it because it's already there. Then the  
user removes the first application, then the framework, and suddenly  
the second application doesn't work any longer. And if you want to  
keep track of all dependencies, version mismatches and the like, you  
end up with a whole porting infrastructure à la DarwinPorts or Fink,  
I imagine!

Bruno Voisin------------------------- Info --------------------------
Mac-TeX Website: http://www.esm.psu.edu/mac-tex/
          & FAQ: http://latex.yauh.de/faq/
TeX FAQ: http://www.tex.ac.uk/faq
List Archive: http://tug.org/pipermail/macostex-archives/

More information about the MacOSX-TeX mailing list