On Jun 3, 2006, at 10:57 AM, David Vincent Himelright wrote: Hi, and welcome. Can you point out which OS X version, etc. you have?

I'm building at home on a Tiger (10.4.6) G4 system, and we've got some G5s at work running other versions. Incidentally, I wish our lab had some Intel Macs so I could offer to patch the packaging scripts for universal binary, but I might be able to find one if I look around. --David On Jun 3, 2006, at 2:37 PM, Ben Fowler wrote:

Hmm, that is odd. I've been working from svn, hacked path-prefix.h up a few weeks ago. I'm thinking that the issue was fixed in source control before I even raised the issue. I've nuked the patched version of path-prefix.h and re-checked out from svn (12184), now rebuilding from source, and it looks like the defines are all in place now. Re: building universal binaries - I certainly can cross-compile on a PPC system. The step I'd need to take first though would be to completely isolate my build system - including dependencies. I'm currently building support libraries with fink-unstable and while that takes a lot of the work out of patching and configuring dependencies, it also leaves a bit of a mess. I'll see what I can do today about cleaning up, isolating and rebuilding dependencies (gtk, gtkmm, pango) from source outside of the system path. --David On Jun 3, 2006, at 3:12 PM, Ben Fowler wrote:

On Jun 3, 2006, at 4:26 PM, Ben Fowler wrote: Yes, unambiguously, yes! My version was bogus. SVN builds for me now, I'm running a fresh compile as I type this. I'll look at the build doc and try to get things scripted out using the canonical process, now that I've run the gauntlet a couple of times with training wheels (using the package manager). Thanks Ben, --David

What would building the Universal binary entail? Would the machine be needed just for the build, or would it be needed for extended testing? I have several friends with x86 Macs. If I didn't need to have their computers for very long, I may be able to get my hands on one. I doubt they'd be willing to live without their loved ones for more than a week. Would I just need to follow the same instructions as on this page? http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/CompilingMacOsX I've never packaged before, though I'm familiar with fink on PPC (my wife has a Mac). I guess what I'm saying is that I can probably get access to the hardware if someone is willing to do a bit of hand-holding. Thanks, -- Michael Moore ------------------------------- www.stuporglue.org -- Donate your used computer to a student that needs it. www.ubuntu-utah.org -- In Utah? Interested in Ubuntu? Come join us.

On Jun 3, 2006, at 8:32 PM, Michael Moore wrote: Hi Michael, a couple of things right off the bat. The launcher application that runs X11 will need to be recompiled as universal. It may actually work in emulation under Rosetta, but it may not, and it'll certainly be slow. It's the app in 'src/packaging/ScriptExec'. To compile universal binaries, you'll want the most recent version of Apple's developer tools (XCode 2.3), which updates Apple's gcc and libtool and comes with lipo. Beyond that, I'm willing to help out and field questions about the Mac side of things. I'm pretty much a GTK and Inkscape noob, but I've been porting apps to the Mac from Windows for years. --David

On Jun 3, 2006, at 9:41 PM, Michael Wybrow wrote: Well, I was addressing the other Micheal, but now I know who the Mac maven is ;-) Good to know! I really like this project, and I'm looking forward to the immendio GTK+ Mac port sometime down the road. --David

On Sun, 4 Jun 2006, Alan Horkan wrote: In theory I know how to do it. I've done some reading as well as quizing Aaron Voisine on the process he uses to build a Universal version of Gimp.app. The easiest way to do this is to build two idential versions on two machines (one PPC, one x86) and use the Apple tool lipo to build a single universal version of each of the executables/libraries from the different arcitecture versions. This is what is done for Gimp.app. (lipo man page: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Reference/ManPages/man1/l...) The only reason I have not yet tried the above approach is that I don't have access to an Intel MAC. I was actually thinking that one good use of Inkscape's savings might be to purchase a cheap Intel Mac (i.e, MacMini). In theory one would only need shell access so this headless box could live anywhere as long as it had a fast connection. Probably though it would be better if it lived with one of the Mac developers so some amount of testing could be done. I'd been thinking in the last few days that it might be ok for such a machine to live at Monash University, since there are now four or five from our research group contributing to Inkscape. I haven't yet talked to our supervisor or any of the tech people but that was an idea. I do think it is really important to have an Intel build of Inkscape for 0.44 or shortly after. In theory you could try rebuilding a fink tree with all Inkscape's dependencies compiled as Universal libraries, though I imagine this would be more trouble that it is worth. Yes, Apple's gcc-4.0 is a cross compiler. It can build target code for either PPC or x86. The problem is that building or app bundle requires having Universal (dual arcitecture) copies of all the fink libraries that we drag into the app bundle. Cheers, Michael

The CREATE Directories are outside of Inkscape dir due to the fact that this is support for the CREATE project and the directories are not determine by Inkscape directly. If you having a patch please add it to the patch track and notify the ML. thank you, Joshua L. Blocher verbalshadow On 6/3/06, David Vincent Himelright <himelright.2@...1307...> wrote: