Re: [ft-devel] Mac install instructions don't seem to exist

[mpsuzuki]

Hi,

I distinguish the document for unreleased CVS source (README.CVS)
from the document for released tarball (docs/INSTALL.XXX).

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 23:05:59 +0100 (CET)
Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> wrote:
>> But this brings me back to the reason I started this thread. :) "Mac
>> install instructions don't seem to exist".  It would be nice to have
>> an INSTALL.MAC file explaining, well, basically a summary of this
>> discussion. :)
>
>Suzuki-San has promised something into this direction...

I think the support status of Mac OS X is almost same with
most Unix shipped with partial GNU environment.
Most of tools in Xcode are Apple modified version that are
based on GNU tools released 1 or 2 years ago. Thus, on Mac
OS X, we cannot build simply as we can do on GNU/Linux which
full-featured GNU tools are preinstalled.

So, if required, improvement of configure, builds/unix/configure.raw
and docs/INSTALL.UNIX are appropriate in principle. At present,
configure (not builds/unix/configure) has a hook to ascertain
whether make is GNU make /or not. I think, putting detailed
version check into configure is the simplest improvement.
Or, the documentation improvement is better? Werner, please
let me know your thought.

Sean, except of GNU make version, there's any issues that
configure, builds/unix/configure and INSTALL.UNIX have not
covered yet?

--

About the documentation for developers checking CVS source:
README.CVS.

>> I must say it's pretty strange that a project like freetype (which
>> includes Mac-specific code) does not build with the development
>> tools that come with the OS.
>
>It does.

I think it's not strange: source on CVS is for developer
with full-featured GNU environment, not for building like
"./configure && make && make install". The developers using
systems with partial GNU environment, like vanilla FreeBSD,
have to setup their environment - as I've written in above.

>> Could autogen.sh be conditionalised to include Chirstian's hack?
>
>No.  You are actually using a developer's version (the CVS), thus you
>have to be prepared to use the latest tools in case .  On the other
>hand, a `public' tarball comes with a generated configure script; in
>that case you neither need automake nor autoconf at all.

In my personal opinion, putting some hooks to check autotools
versions into autogen.sh is not bad idea. However, even if I add
such hook to autogen.sh, it simply requests the versions listed
in README.CVS, I'm not going to find the oldest "working" version
of autotools.

Regards,
mpsuzuki