I've googled the hell out of it, and it seems like there is no way to install gcc on OS X without installing Xcode (which takes at leats 1.5GB of space). All I need is gcc and none of the other junk that comes with Xcode. And at this point, I'll take any other kind of C compiler.
I know I could simply install Xcode, but that is beside the point since I neither have my original installation disc nor a quick internet connection.
So... does anyone have any suggestions?
EDIT: Sorry if I was unclear, but I need the headers as well. I'm currently installing gcc4 via fink and it's downloading the shared libraries as well. I'll update on the progress.
EDIT 2: Ok, so I successfully installed gcc using fink. BUT, it's pretty much useless: "error: C compiler cannot create executables". After googling around, I found that not having Apple's Developer Tools installed is the cause of the error. Probably because I need all the libraries, headers, etc that are only available through Xcode.
Checkout command line tools for Xcode from apple. It's official support from apple to only create the command line tools.
Try the osx-gcc-installer on github.
I've been doing this for a long time, and I've done things like this, and I've concluded it's simply never worth doing. :-(
The reason is that no one expects you to do such things, so there are assumptions all over the system that "everything" is there. You might not run into this today - or worse, you might not even realize later that this is the cause of your issues.
Instead of wasting your smart time on things like this which don't actually produce any working code you can use, following the approved method, run the download overnight, and spend your time instead on planning and writing the top-level code (you shouldn't need a compiler for that anyway!)
I'm fairly certain that this is not possible. However, I'm also not sure if you need the whole developer suite to get the developer tools installed. Quite a few tools get installed along with XCode that might be optional. However, I think you're out of luck for not needing to bite the bullet and use wget or DownThemAll or some other download manager that will let you slowly download the developer tools in chunks.
Whenever I install OS X I install the developer tools as a rule, just because it opens up the world of available software tremendously. Perhaps you should consider doing this in the future as well.
The first thing you want to try is called Pacifist - what Pacifist lets you do is to open a large package (such as XCode) and to access parts of it directly. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to find a smaller package inside the XCode package that just has gcc.
HOWEVER it's not clear to me that this is the best route. If you are planning to do Cocoa or Carbon developing I strongly suggest installing the entire package because you will need all the documentation and headers. If you're only planning on doing command-line stuff, you still may find you need to poke around inside XCode to identify all the packages you will need - things such as libraries, headers, man pages and so on.
All in all you're probably still better off installing the whole thing - if HD space is really tight (because you're on a tiny old iMac for example) then look at tools like Monolingual - Monolingual removes all the international support from all the various OS X applications, which can easily reduce the size of an application by 50%.
There's fink and MacPorts, if you want an easy installer/updater.
Install the GCC package from the Packages directory in Xcode's disk image and you'll have just GCC. Note that of course you won't have autotools or other standard build tools, for which you will have to install more packages from that folder.
I found this googling around that appears to install it without XCode.
install Command Line Tool separately.
refer to
http://osxdaily.com/2014/02/12/install-command-line-tools-mac-os-x
http://osxdaily.com/2012/07/06/install-gcc-without-xcode-in-mac-os-x/
yes i could do it with port but you need at least to accept the code license.
Related
In Wheezy there is a source package for gcc-3.3 which only builds libstdc++5. Close examination shows that building of debian/control (from control.m4) can be modified so that the full package is built, which is my goal (legacy project, needs to be built with libstdc++5-dev:i386 and so on, but I want to build it on Wheezy64).
The question: how do I (find what to) tell dpkg-buildpackage to enable building the rest of the package? Should I just download the source package from archival Lenny?
Impossible at all?
Thanks in advance for any directions.
yes, well.
the preferred way would be to port your legacy project to build with a current g++ (4.8).
this would allow your project to run on any wheezy system (and hopefully on futgure systems like jessie/...)
if this is not an option, you should first try to download the source package from your target release (wheezy), modify debian/control to build all the packages you need, and build them.
chances are high, that gcc-3.3 and friends are disabled only to guarantee that nobody uses obsolete software anymore (so debian people don't have to worry about maintaining gcc-0.1 through 6.66).
as a last ressort you could try to get the source package from lenny and build that.
chances are high that this will be quite complilcated, and bug-ridden.
if youplan using your legacy project in two years from now, you might be better of stating to port it to recent ilbraries now.
I recently had to do something like this. What I did was install an old (32-bit) distro as a VM guest (which included gcc-3.4) just to make sure that it built and worked in "the past" before making changes for current build tools.
I did this mainly because you can be pretty sure that the build tools and environment worked back then, because everyone needed them. Not as many people are going to be using old tools now, so it's less clear that things will work. But it could work alright.
It's not exactly clear from your question whether you want a 64 bit or 32 bit version of this legacy software. If you want a 64 bit version, there might be fewer issues to port first to a modern 32 bit environment, then a modern 64 bit environment. At least you'll be able to identify where the bugs are.
I've tried searching on this and everything seems to assume more knowledge on the subject than I have. I've downloaded this PureData external: https://github.com/badgeek/fux_videoglitch , and I think I need to compile the makefile, but I don't know how to do this. There doesn't seem to be a readMe with any instructions, and I can't seem to figure it out from any search hits. Can anyone point me in the right direction here? Thanks
First, you'll need to install either Xcode or Make. There's another stack question that relates the process for installing make in OSX install make command without already having make (mac os 10.5)
At which point you'll simply put in to terminal:
make targetfile
http://mrbook.org/tutorials/make/ has some great background on how this works. Make is simply for compiling big multifile programs.
IIRC Pure Data is kind of tricky to compile in the first place, so you'll want to keep instructions for compilation handy - the Pure Data mailing list often has users confused by this process.
I enjoy developing in Haskell, but am presently confronted with a challenge. At my place of education, I don't have administrative rights on my account. I want to debug/test while there. I need a way to run Haskell code without installing haskell-platform or ghci or anything else requiring of an administrative level of privilege. For instance, a web site which will run haskell code (abeit limited to not include file access of course) or a java utility (or standalone .app, though java is preferred due to the nature of the "parental controls"), or something else I haven't thought of. Source or compiled Java, Flash, and source code in Ruby or Python are preferred to native code. This is on Mac OS X 10.6, for reference.
You can install GHC without admin privileges, but you'll have to build from source. Check out the Building on MacOS X for more details.
Essentially, like any other open-source project, you can compile code and install it, generally, anywhere on your filesystem like into a folder in your home folder (I often use the ~/.local folder for that purpose).
As the linked page mentions, you can also use MacPorts and install it to any place you can write to. Once MacPorts is installed you can install GHC.
EDIT
As pointed out by Carl in the comments below, you don't need to build from source. Just grab the binary tarball from http://www.haskell.org/ghc/download_ghc_7_4_1#binaries.
In addition to all the other ideas, several companies will rent you virtual (cloud) linux servers for a few cents an hour. You have root on those and can install whatever you want, then freeze the image until you need it again.
Normally this might not be advantageous over a local solution if you can make one work, but a possible extra benefit would be that your work can stay on a single "computer" which you could access while sitting in front of any variety of modern PC that might be available to you on a given day.
An alternative not only for Haskell is http://ideone.com/
For the website option, TryHaskell will hardly cut it, it's way to limited.
codepad, OTOH, is more liberal, and should be of more use.
But honestly the bindist option is the best one, clearly!
If you truly can't install anything, then there's
http://tryhaskell.org/ -- like GHCi, but you can't load modules, which means not only that you can't use many standard functions (say, the functions in Data.List), but also that you can't use certain language features (like user-defined algebraic data types).
I also remember a hpaste-style site which executes its code -- and allows you to have private pastes -- but I can't remember it at the moment. Edit: I was thinking of http://codepad.org/ -- thanks #Mog
Try http://hiji.tinyrocket.se/ It is a haskell interpreter written using javascript.
http://ghc.io/ GHC.IO is a version of the Haskell interactive interpreter, ghci, that runs online in a web browser.
You just need to install homebrew, which you can do without root rights if you do so in your home directory. You can then brew install cabal-install
which will automatically install cabal and ghc, or brew install stack to install stack.
There is a web-based interpreter for Haskell at http://tryhaskell.org/. However, it may not provide enough functionality for your requirements.
got a new mac, need to have it setup ready for development. I heard great things about macports, should i use it? Is it really easier than manually download and compile? anyone has any problems using it?
It is for typical ruby web development stuff.
thanks
Try homebrew. It's really good because it's highly optimized, and has no redundant packages.
It's also built in Ruby, which seems particularly relevant to you.
It really is easier than doing it manually. For example:
sudo port install gimp
will download, build, and install Gimp, plus all its dependencies. There are a lot of dependencies.
If you're doing "typical" stuff, the versions of stuff in MacPorts will be sufficient. Only if you need to be on the bleeding edge will you need to bypass MacPorts and download and install manually.
While macports can make installation easier, it's the difference between 4 commands (wget/tar/configure/make) and 1 command. Where macports really shines is in package management. If you're primarily interested in Ruby development, RubyGems might be all you need. If you're doing Ruby on Rails, macports will be quite helpful with all the non-ruby software you'll need. If you want to go completely GUI, you can use Porticus as a macports frontend.
I have had the occasional problem during the build phase, but that's under Tiger, which is behind the times.
I prefer macports, but some people like doing it themselves. Macports tends to be behind releases, but it's still good for me
The strongest problem with macports is that it's not cross platform, and it's hard to specify a well defined development scenario (e.g. you use Foo version 1.2.3, Bar version 0.5.6 etc.). It makes your life easier, but as of today, I still haven't found a decent solution to the definition and building of a development runtime environment which is efficient, easy and cross platform. See also this question.
So my suggestion is: go with macports, unless you want very strict control of your development environment.
You should use a package manager unless you have a well defined, specific reason not to.
'Course, I prefer fink.
I've put together my very first package with PackageMaker (for a system service), but I am not happy about several faults:
Frequent crashes while applying target permissions to my source files
Package source files are not automatically or easily refreshed
File filter does not work
Is there something else out there more capable of this task? Free is not a requirement.
Yes it is, and yes it's buggy. Apple uses the command line version pretty much exclusively so the GUI tends to have the feeling that it's been slapped together by a summer intern and never tested.
PackageMaker is the standard, for things that need an installer (many regular applications just use a DMG, often with a background image telling the user to copy the bundle to /Applications - eg Firefox does this)
MindVision VISE is a commercial solution you can look at, used by some people, but personally I think the look & feel of the resulting installers is subtly wrong (and slightly retro) - that's a subjective viewpoint of course.
Package Maker works pretty well for many people - though documentation is rather scant; are you sure the problems you're experiencing aren't fixable?
There (now) is a great free alternative to PackageMaker with the simple name "Packages":
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Software/Packages/about.html
It's really easy to use, very stable and mature and even open source (in case you need to hack anything). Plus: it has a well written documentation!
I had the same problem until I added #!/bin/sh at the top of the script. Apparently PackageMaker needs it; I wish the log was a bit more clear about it.
IHIH, Oren
Since Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard it is recommended to use pkgbuild and productbuild instead of PackageMaker.