I am sort of switching to a Mac based development environment as the Mac line of laptops and workstations contains some very nice systems, albeit pricey. As an occasional Emacs developer, I want to build Emacs from the git/bazaar sources. Much to my surprise, the first time I attempted to do this using Xcode4, I discovered that the version of autoconf supplied with Xcode is less than that required by Emacs. So this raises the question: what approaches do those who develop Emacs daily using Mac hardware take in order to have the required libraries and headers available to build and run the Emacs development code on OS X? Left to my own devices, I will fetch and build the versions of components required by Emacs that are not satisfied by Xcode and put those into /usr/local/... but it does occur to me that other approaches, using fink for one example, might be less work and/or more satisfying, hence the question. This also applies to the add-on packages for graphics support (pdf, dvi, png, etc.) that are not supplied by Xcode.
The directions in the file nextstep/INSTALL is to issue the following commands:
./configure --with-ns
make install
The resulting "app" can be found in nextstep/Emacs.app.
However, there is an XCode project provided with Emacs, but I haven't got it to work.
I use the macports package 'emacs-app', which is just emacs configured --with-ns. They're currently at version 23.2.1
Even if you want to build emacs direct from GNU repos, using macports to get autotools should save you some time and energy. The autoconf package is at 2.68, and emacs configure.ac requires 2.65
Related
I've been reading about youcompleteme plugin for VIM.
The problem is, however, that I want a setup I just can move onto my other dev platforms (OpenIndiana, FreeBSD, Linux and OS X).
Wouldn't using macvim make that somewhat difficult, moving plugin from platform to platform?
Cheers
MacVim is simply a distribution of Vim for Mac OS but most of Vim plugins are compatible with the multiples versions of Vim for the different OS.
Still YouCompleteMe comports a compiled component so your question is legit to wonder if it will work on different OSes. According to the installation section of the Readme of the project, YCM can be installed on OSX, Linux and FreeBSD with a plugin manager like Vundle. (I really don't know OpenIndiana and it isn't mentioned on the Readme page so I can't say if you'll have a problem with this one)
One point you should take care is that if you update the plugin and the compiled component has changed you'll have to recompile it but it doesn't happen that often and you should get a warning at the update.
TL;DR This shouldn't be an issue to use YCM on most of the common OSes but when updating remember that you might need to recompile the compiled component sometimes.
How do I install a current Frama-C release and its prerequisites on Macs?
I have a laptop running Mac OS X 10.6.8 and a desktop running Mac OS X 10.7.5
which I can install software on. I also have access to a lab of machines
running Mac OS X 10.8 which our technical support people will install stuff on
if I ask nicely.
I have a student who is interested in program analysis and needs something
that we have a fighting chance of understanding and adding to. I was already
aware of Frama-C, and a colleague at another university recommended it.
I had previously tried to install Frama-C and failed miserably. The colleague
commented that he'd had the same experience. Well, times change. So I visited
the Frama-C web site, was more impressed and keener to have it than ever, and
set about it.
The frama-c.com download page doesn't have links to any binaries for the
current (Flourine 3) release for any platform. The link to installation
instruction takes me to a page that says to download the auto-installer.
What auto-installer?
There are instructions for an old version of Mac OS X, but following them
didn't work; loading one set of prerequisites as instructed produced a
state where the next prerequisite (gtksourceview) would not install.
Of course I checked the older releases, and I see that there's a Nitrogen
version for Mac OS X Leopard, but "Please untar the archive as root in /"
asks me to perform the impossible. I don't have a root account and will
never be given one (the machines all belong to the university). It is
perfectly possible to install gcc and clang anywhere you like; why does
Frama-C want to be in /?
In addition to Pascal's answer, you can also have a look to opam, which is a source package manager for OCaml applications. It appears to run on MacOS X, and there are packages for Frama-C's Oxygen and Fluorine.
All Frama-C binary packages want to install in / (precisely, in /usr/local/Frama-C) because Frama-C uses GTK+ and various GTK+-related libraries that were never designed to run from anything other than a fixed location. They load configuration files and resources from paths that have been hard-coded at compile-time. GCC and Clang install anywhere because they don't rely on GTK+. Like them, the command-line version of Frama-C can be relocated through various environment variables listed here.
Note that to take advantage of a binary package, you would only need one symbolic link pointing from /usr/local/Frama-C to the place where you really extracted the files, if your administrator(s) can grant you that. Binary packages only work for one OS X version. For packages available from the official website, this version is usually 10.6 (Snow Leopard).
I have ceased making Frama-C binary packages for two reasons:
by removing features and support for hardware configurations in each of the last two OS X releases, Apple has fragmented the OS X landscape in a way I don't have the time to deal with. You mention 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 in your question. I also have Macs running each of 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. They are all incompatible (when trying to build a software package that includes a compiler).
I have much less time available now that I am participating in the creation of a start-up that offers Frama-C-based static analysis to interested industrial users.
This said, Frama-C the Open-Source advanced research prototype continues to be developed and maintained, and continues to be a great testbed to experiment in. You can install Frama-C without root access on a Mac in two ways apart from what you have already tried:
Install only the command-line version. Then the only dependency is a recent version of the OCaml compiler. Frama-C's configure will detect that you do not have the GTK libraries and will not try to use them. Installation should take 20 minutes at most for a recent OCaml + the latest Frama-C.
Install a recent Linux distribution in a virtual machine. Use that distribution's package manager to obtain all the GTK+ dependencies. If the distribution's OCaml package is recent enough, use that and then the lablgtk-2 package, otherwise, compile OCaml and then lablgtk-2 from source. Then compile Frama-C.
For Fluorine, the oldest supported OCaml version is 3.12.1.
with macports:
export PKG_CONFIG_PATH=/opt/local/lib/pkgconfig
sudo port install opam
opam init
Y
eval `opam config env`
sudo port install gtksourceview2 lablgtk2 ocaml-ocamlgraph
opam install frama-c
I have been using RapidSVN on a Linux machine for the past few years - it has become an excellent tool for managing my source.
Yesterday my trusty Linux laptop had a couple of strokes so I decided it was time to replace it. Today I went out and purchased a new Mac Book Pro with the flashy display and solid state drives.
Then I went hunting for an SVN tool to run on Mac. I found that RapidSVN will run on a Mac as it was developed using wxWidgets (cross platform windowing).
So, I needed to install wxWidgets, however this doesn't come as an executable so I had to download the tar ball. To compile I realised I don't have a compiler installed yet... so, install Xcode 4.4, then learn that doesn't install a compiler either... find the Xcode preference to install the command line tools (compiler).
So, now I have Xcode installed, a gcc compiler, and tracking back up it comes to wxWidgets. It takes a little working out but I manage to extract the files into a directory in my home folder, (following instructions of course), and from the 'build' folder I run the ../configure command (which seems to work) and then the 'make' command which fails:
In file included from ../include/wx/mac/private.h:4,
from ../src/common/dynlib.cpp:48:
../include/wx/mac/carbon/private.h:1459: error: ‘Cursor’ does not name a type
../include/wx/mac/carbon/private.h:1488: error: ‘ClassicCursor’ does not name a type
make: *** [baselib_dynlib.o] Error 1
So I go hunting for a solution only to find this bug: http://trac.wxwidgets.org/ticket/14536 which unfortunately indicates this is not going to be fixed.
Changed 10 months ago by csomor
* status changed from new to closed
* resolution set to wontfix
A dismal day in the land of computers. I am now stuck for the next 5-6 years on a computer that will never be able to compile anything using wxWidgets - I rather feel like taking it back to Apple and getting my money back.
So where to from here? Is there a binary version of wxWidgets available? Is there a binary version of RapidSVN available? Should I downgrade to OSX 10.x something less than I am currently on? Should I upgrade to unstable wxWidgets?
This is an interesting but not very understandable read. What exactly are you trying to achieve? If you're looking to use the best available version of wxWidgets under OS X, get 2.9.4 or the current svn version and build it using the Xcode version you have already with Cocoa support. If you absolutely need to continue to use Carbon (why?), either install Xcode 3, available from Apple, or get 10.6 (or 10.5) SDK in some other way and pass it as the SDK to use to configure using --with-macosx-sdk option as explained in the documentation.
VZ is right. If you need to use wxWidgets 2.8 on OS X (and there are legitimate reasons for needing to do so), get the 10.6 SDK. Copy it alongside the already installed 10.7 and/or 10.8 , and select it in the project/target's build settings.
From here I have given up trying to compile anything on my current OSX. I am not going to downgrade or install multiple versions of different libraries in order to satisfy the lack of support for the latest current stable versions.
From here I will download and install binaries only.
I have Mac OSX Lion and just did this:
brew install wxmac
and was able to get through the install with no issues.
Is it possible to develop cross-platform application on Windows and can also compile for Mac OS X from Windows? I have checked Qt but that requires one to compile from Mac using Xcode.
If this is your priority then one option would be Java as at least a jar file built on one platform can be run on another.
If however you're talking about C or C++...
If you are creating a small command line tool then you might be able to make this work with gcc and a cross compiler, but I think it would be a lot of work.
If however you are wanting to create a GUI application I would urge you to give up now. There are so many issues - you'd have to use Carbon or Cocoa APIs which you can't build for on any other platform, you'd have to link against frameworks which won't exist on your compilation host, you won't be able to easily generate .plist files. Qt won't help as you need to be able to build it, which relies on these same frameworks.
In short, there's no alternative to building on an actual mac.
Furthermore, when it comes to fixing bugs, you will absolutely have to do this on a mac (either physical or virtual).
From what I know , in general you do need a mac to make the executable , even for a simple ansi c program you need gcc for mac.
You can create MacPorts Portfile.(If your application is open source)
A MacPorts port is a set of specifications contained in a Portfile
that defines an application, its characteristics, and any files or
special instructions required to install it. This allows you to use a
single command to tell MacPorts to automatically download, compile,
and install applications and libraries.
Take a look at IMCROSS.
IMCROSS is a simple, scripted method of installing cross-compilers and
cross-compiled libraries on a Linux (or possibly other *nix) system,
so that you can develop programs targeted to run on Microsoft Windows
and Mac OS X at the same time and in the same environment as you
develop Linux versions of those programs.
You can certainly do this using Real Studio. It can create Mac OS X applications on Windows without any trouble.
It cross-compiles for Windows, OS X and Linux. And it does it from any platform. It also can create web apps.
Sounds like you should check it out.
Building from source outside of macports is a breeze. Building with macports takes forever and seems to freeze the os every so often. Is this typical behavior? Although it seems like a nice packaging tool for os x, if I have to go through this pain every time during every install I think I'll do without it.
If you are running on an Intel Core 2 Duo you can double the speed of your builds by changing the Macports config option located here:
/opt/local/etc/macports/macports.conf
# Number of simultaneous make jobs (commands) to use when building ports
buildmakejobs 2
I was kicking myself when I discovered this AFTER I rebuilt gcc ;)
This option will allow you to use both cpu's for building packages.
"freeze the os"? Can you be more specific? What packages were you trying to build on what version of OS X on what machine?
In my experience, MacPorts builds generally work correctly on almost any supported configuration, in my case ranging from a 256MB Pismo G3 (year 2000) running 10.4 up though a recent dual-core Intel iMac on 10.5. You have to be patient, though: it may take a long time especially if there are a lot of dependent packages, which is one of the drawbacks of using a package manager like MacPorts or Fink. The upside is that you generally have a much-more controlled and, one hopes, tested environment than if you installed individually packages from source yourself. And, if you haven't already, make sure you update to the latest MacPorts: 1.8.0 was just released and has some important improvements, including better support of universal builds.
I don't mind waiting for Mac Ports to build from source on the latest packages. But why not harness all this processing power and offer users the option to let the build be automatically uploaded back to MacPorts or better still be hashed and offered peer-to-peer to other MacPorts users who can choose a 'turbo' option.
MacPorts used to only build from source and this can lead to a difference of several orders of magnitudo when compared to a package system that fetch binaries.
Consider as example the case of a somehow big package that takes few hours to be built and compare this to the time of downloading it as an archive having a size of a few tens of MBs.
MacPorts uses Apple's tools to build and it only adds a negligible overhead to the same build time that you would get outside of MacPorts, the bigger the package, the smaller the difference. If you experience a huge difference when building a program outside of MP you should file a ticket on the issue tracker with the details.
That said I see the question is quite old, since 2.0 there's support for binary archives -cf. Changelog- there's a macosforge supported repository with buildbots that produce signed archives and the default is to fetch these binary archives rather than building from source (that you can force using -s flag).
The current user experience is more similar to binary managers like apt-get, with the ability to change configure and build options quite easily.