I have always been of the opinion that if you are building a Mac bundle application, it should be complete as a bundle at the end of the build. At the end of "make". Even before "make install".<div><br>
</div><div>Now that may just be my ancient Mac-fanboy-forever bias showing through, but if you're building a bundle application, then I should be able to go to the build directory in the Finder and double click the icon after the build is done. If I can't do that, it ain't a real Mac bundle app. Period.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So I think it is completely valid to expect that a Mac app be bundled at build time.</div><div><br></div><div>Just my personal opinion, though.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>:-)</div><div>David</div>
<div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Clinton Stimpson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:clinton@elemtech.com">clinton@elemtech.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Timothy M. Shead wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
David Cole wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I vote for a new generator then. A Drag-N-Drop DMG generator == DDD? :-)<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I prefer this to changing the bundle generator behavior.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Maybe just good documentation about the existing generators and what sorts of assumptions they make would be a good place to start. I think the main problem here is that people expect the "bundle generator" to deal with bundles properly, when in fact, what it does is create a bundle for you at packaging time. It's a name overloading / human understanding problem... not a problem with the code.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I would nuance this to suggest that the current MACOSX_BUNDLE behavior blurs the line between building and packaging, which causes much of the confusion. Arguably, a dmg+bundle IS-A package - so creating a bundle in the build directory is the wrong division of labor. If there was NSIS-specific stuff that got created in the build directory every time you specified WIN32_EXECUTABLE, we'd be having the same sort of confusion on Win32.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
How do you see a "make install" fitting in? I think you need the application bundle by that time.<br>
<br>
Clint<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
CMake mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CMake@cmake.org" target="_blank">CMake@cmake.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake" target="_blank">http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>