[Pythonmac-SIG] Private frameworks - BINGO!
Mark Day
mday@mac.com
Fri, 23 Aug 2002 13:58:21 -0700
On Friday, August 23, 2002, at 01:22 PM, Jack Jansen wrote:
> Just after sending my previous mail I though I'd have a look at how
> OmniGraffle links to its frameworks (by using "otool -l"), and it uses
> the "@executable_path/../Frameworks/" construct we've discussed here
> before.
I wonder if you could make the frameworks be a peer of the top-level
applications, and put enough "../"s in the the above path? So, a tree
looking like:
Python 2.3/
Python 2.3/Frameworks/
...
Python 2.3/PythonIDE.app/
...
Presumably, the user could move the whole Python 2.3 folder around, but
can't move the items inside the folder unless the frameworks were in
one of the standard locations.
But when would you move/copy the frameworks to one of the standard
locations? Via some menu item in the interpretter or IDE? Ask them on
first launch if they're "just trying it out" or "I'm hooked; keep it
around for me" (probably too annoying)?
> We could solve this be sprinkling symlinks all over the place, but I'm
> not sure I like that....
Not all volume formats support symlinks. For example, they couldn't
copy to their iDisk on WebDAV, or DOS FAT, or SMB. But then again,
don't packages currently require symlinks (eg., for the "Current"
version to point to the actual version that is current). Sigh.
> Hmm, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all. But feel free to
> ponder about it and come up with nifty solutions....
Could there be a runnable version of the apps on a disk image? They
could try it out by running from the disk image. Could it then be
installed without needing yet another copy of the image? I suppose
once the user has copied the application to a writable volume, you
could just move the frameworks to a standard spot automatically.
-Mark