[OS X TeX] TeXMaker 1.3 Universal Binary

Adam R. Maxwell amaxwell at mac.com
Thu Mar 9 10:31:41 EST 2006

On Mar 9, 2006, at 04:33, Bruno Voisin wrote:

>> 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!

I think versioning/dependencies are the main reason that shared  
frameworks on Mac OS X aren't used that much, beyond the system  
ones.  OmniGroup ships their frameworks inside the application  
bundle, which wastes disk space...but allows OmniOutliner 2 and  
OmniOutliner 3 to coexist and function on the same system, even  
though they are linked with (possibly) incompatible versions of the  
frameworks.  FWIW, I prefer the Mac way: everything should be  
installed via drag-and-drop if possible, and easily relocatable by  
the same means.

Adam------------------------- 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