There is no other way than fink to install Inkscape under Mac OS X ?
Because I will not install 100 Mo of packages and binaries requested by fink only to be able to use Inscape ....
There is really no one binary somewhere ??
The Mac OS X people who worked on getting Inkscape installed and working on Mac only did so using fink. I don't think anyone's researched into other ways of doing the install, so it's conceivable there may be another way. The first trick is to see if you can install all of the Inkscape prerequisites (Gtk+, Gtkmm, libsigc++, etc.) I think that's where people have had trouble in the past. If that's still the case, then you may want to touch bases with either GNOME or Apple to see about making those package ports available.
Bryce
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, M-Rick wrote:
There is no other way than fink to install Inkscape under Mac OS X ?
Because I will not install 100 Mo of packages and binaries requested by fink only to be able to use Inscape ....
There is really no one binary somewhere ??
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Sybase ASE Linux Express Edition - download now for FREE LinuxWorld Reader's Choice Award Winner for best database on Linux. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5588&alloc_id=12065&op=click _______________________________________________ Inkscape-user mailing list Inkscape-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/inkscape-user
Le 10 nov. 04, à 16:55, M-Rick a écrit :
There is no other way than fink to install Inkscape under Mac OS X ? Because I will not install 100 Mo of packages and binaries requested by fink only to be able to use Inscape ....
Fink is NOT 100Mb! But the prerequisites of Inkscape aren't small. Gtk+ and such will at least weight 20 Mb, I believe.
There is really no one binary somewhere ??
A binary would link all these together and this is something which is really not a good idea. Gtk and friends are a core part of a large amount of applications in XWindows, it makes no sense to bundle (if ever possible).
Hold on, there's actually more... Inkscape is even only available under the unstable tree of Fink, not even the stable... (and I tried hacking a stable fink to get it installed but I didn't manage yet).
Honestly, fink is one of the most precious things that you can do for your Unix on Macs and the default installation is, I think, less than 10Mb...
hope that helps.
paul
Quoth Paul Libbrecht on or about 2004-11-11:
Le 10 nov. 04, __ 16:55, M-Rick a __crit :
There is no other way than fink to install Inkscape under Mac OS X ? Because I will not install 100 Mo of packages and binaries requested by fink only to be able to use Inscape ....
Fink is NOT 100Mb!
But the prerequisites of Inkscape aren't small. Gtk+ and such will at least weight 20 Mb, I believe.
There is really no one binary somewhere ??
A binary would link all these together and this is something which is really not a good idea. Gtk and friends are a core part of a large amount of applications in XWindows, it makes no sense to bundle (if ever possible).
This deserves an clearer explanation, for the benefit of M. Rick and others who may not understand the concept of libraries. From the top...
* * *
Programmers often find themselves reusing blocks of code. A library is a way of abstracting a block of code so that many applications can re-use it. For example, GTK2 is a library which provides a widget set.
Applications can make use of a library in two ways, called static and dynamic linking respectively. Static linking `copies' the library into the application's binary file; dynamic linking allows the application to `connect' to the library at run-time.
The advantage of dynamic linking is that the computer only needs to load the library once, even if multiple programs need to use it. Likewise, you only need to download / install the library once.
* * *
The disadvantage of dynamic linking is that the library MUST be where the application expects it to be. This is, broadly, what fink does.
To make a `copy this file to /Applications to install inkscape' package would require either
* duplicating some of fink's functionality. This is non-trivial, and we've already got fink, so why bother?
or
* linking to GTK et al statically. If this was done, you'd still have to download those libraries (i.e. the 100Mb), only they'd be part of Inkscape. If you wanted to install another program that used those libraries, you'd have to download ANOTHER 100Mb, regardless of whether that program was statically or dynamically linked.
The *REAL* problem, as I see it, is that Apple were impolite enough not to bundle Fink and the libraries with your system, which is what Linux vendors do. (That's why Debian has 7 CDs and OS-X only has 1.5.)
-trent
Le 11 nov. 04, à 14:35, Trent Buck a écrit :
The *REAL* problem, as I see it, is that Apple were impolite enough not to bundle Fink and the libraries with your system, which is what Linux vendors do. (That's why Debian has 7 CDs and OS-X only has 1.5.)
That would also mean provide XWindows by default (not the case). And that would mean endorsing Fink! Although Fink's quality standard is quite high, I would not expect it to reach, for example, Apple's standards... but I may mistake, for sure. In particular, Fink's quality is only as good as the quality of "the rest" including the Gtk port to MacOSX's XWindows, for example...
But we're drifting...
Note, however, that it would be nice that Inkscape comes in the stable fink. I don't know how to push this... probably the dependency on packages which, also, only exists in unstable...
paul
Quoth Paul Libbrecht on or about 2004-11-11:
The *REAL* problem, as I see it, is that Apple were impolite enough not to bundle Fink and the libraries with your system, which is what Linux vendors do. (That's why Debian has 7 CDs and OS-X only has 1.5.)
And that would mean endorsing Fink! Although Fink's quality standard is quite high, I would not expect it to reach, for example, Apple's standards...
But we're drifting...
Then let me just say then, that IMO distributing *no* product is a damn sight less useful than distributing a poor product.
Note that I'm not talking about preinstalling anything, just that a `contrib' DVD (with a big warning sticker about unreliablility, if you like) be included with new Macs.
-trent
Quoth Paul Libbrecht on or about 2004-11-11:
The *REAL* problem, as I see it, is that Apple were impolite
enough
not
to bundle Fink and the libraries with your system, which is what
Linux
vendors do. (That's why Debian has 7 CDs and OS-X only has 1.5.)
And that would mean endorsing Fink! Although Fink's quality standard is quite high, I would not expect
it
to reach, for example, Apple's standards...
But we're drifting...
Then let me just say then, that IMO distributing *no* product is a
damn
sight less useful than distributing a poor product.
Note that I'm not talking about preinstalling anything, just that a `contrib' DVD (with a big warning sticker about unreliablility, if you like) be included with new Macs.
What is in it for Apple though? Why would they want to distribute a DVD that has free tools that either A) They sell something similar to; B) One of their big corporate buddies sell something similar to; or C) They're not going to benefit from in any way, shape, or form (by corporate standards)? And who would prepare and maintain this, as well as make sure there is never any malware included?
Plus, why would you want to distribute something to people that in the end is a hassle for you. Because warning sticker or not, for Joe Six-pack, if it comes with their new computer they're going to assume it's safe. And the negative feedback they'd get from "the average user" would be enough to deter them. Just because we all understand how open source tends to work, we read those stickers, and also read the EULAs doesn't mean a thing to the rest of the world (because they don't).
So for them, why should they go to the trouble of giving people a disc full of stuff that people are going to disregard or potentially be upset with them about?
I like the way that most Linux distros are with including every possible tool you could ever need... but the Linux perspective of "if it doesn't work, I'll make it" doesn't apply to the Mac world in which, if it's from apple it "just works".
And for the record, it would rock if Apple did such a thing and I'd stand behind them... but it's not too likely that it will happen in the near future.
-Josh
Quoth Joshua A. Andler on or about 2004-11-11:
And for the record, it would rock if Apple did such a thing and I'd stand behind them... but it's not too likely that it will happen in the near future.
OK, absolutely my last reply...
I didn't say they have any motive or that they were likely to do it. I just said that it would be a courtesy to their customers.
OTOH, their profits are in the hardware, so shipping an open-source OS with maybe some chrome on top would be a good business decision. Oh wait, they already did that :-)
-trent
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 16:55 +0100, M-Rick wrote:
There is no other way than fink to install Inkscape under Mac OS X ?
Because I will not install 100 Mo of packages and binaries requested by fink only to be able to use Inscape ....
There is really no one binary somewhere ??
What I'd really like to see is Inkscape having a download similar to:
It is so easy to install, and it just works. I have no idea how to get to that point though. But, if someone wanted to e-mail the admins (or they may have a mailing list), I would definitely be in favor of having it. I'm sure there is an art community that would love to be able to get Inkscape that easily.
--Ted
participants (6)
-
Bryce Harrington -
Joshua A. Andler -
M-Rick -
Paul Libbrecht -
Ted Gould -
Trent Buck