On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Darren Weber <darren.weber.lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeah, I also found that fink conflicts with macports. I do like the > idea of using the Debian repository and package management system. > For some reason, which escapes me now, I went with macports (maybe it > was just that macports gave me an emacs.app - poor reason actually). > Yet another "learning" curve for OSX. All this confusion makes me > appreciate the beauty of Debian systems (eg, Ubuntu), with regard to > package management. I hope all this mucking around with OSX is going > to pay-off sooner or later. It will. My advice, is to pick one packaging system for your build-from-source addons, and stick with it. I prefer MacPorts, Benjamin is a Fink man. > I guess the best suggestion (maybe the best solution) in this thread > to date is to hack that symlink and hope the build system (and > run-time links) will work everything out from there. Using the binary > installer is easier and provides more GUI apps than doing the source > build. I've done a quick, standard source build and install into > /usr/local/pgsql/, can this co-exist with the binary installation into > /Library/PostgreSQL/[version]? Yes. I regularly have half a dozen or more installs of PostgreSQL and Postgres Plus (EnterpriseDB's version of PostgreSQL) on the same box - including source and installer builds. > FYI, just to illustrate some of the confusion I can see. For > starters, we need gmake. Well: Use make from XCode. It is gmake. > > OK, but it's curious that I'm running OS X (10.5; Darwin 9.4.0) on a > mac pro with dual quad-core zeons and the make program was built for > Darwin 9.0 on a powerpc! (Looking to the heavens, I wonder how the > hell can that work?) It does work, but maybe I should build it to get > the architecture right (maybe everything should be built from the > ground up!), so: Use the file command to check what type of binary it is. If it really is a PPC binary, then it'll be running under Rosetta (http://www.apple.com/rosetta/). Otherwise, it's probably a universal binary which contains PPC and Intel executables in the same file. > A bit more intrigue; I'm reading the options for building postgreSQL > 8.3.3 and I check the system for libperl and libpython, ie: > ... > > Whoa, talk about a real supermarket full of the "same" libraries. I > know that every-man and his dog has their own opinion on the "pure" > installation system (maybe it's a bit like belief in one or many > gods?). Anyhow, I have to figure out what the default search path is > for the linker (ie, how to avoid total paranoia about configuring > builds). You'll almost always use the stuff under /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk, which is the Leopard SDK. Substitute in /opt if you need non-standard versions of anything, or additional libraries from MacPorts (or Fink). You've also got the Tiger SDK and at least some of the iphone SDK there. > Looks like I've got my work cut out for me before I even begin to > develop anything. It's really not that difficult - unless you need universal binaries, or want to target older versions of OSX, you won't normally see anything different from Linux for example. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
