Re: MXE Octave: "... has no symbols" warning under Mac OS X

[c.]

On 23 Sep 2013, at 10:53, Anirudha Bose <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Anirudha Bose <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM, c. <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On 22 Sep 2013, at 22:21, Anirudha Bose <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> > I basically used Macports to get gfortran in Mac OS X, and some deps like 
> > GhostScript. I was wondering if it is possible to specify a "--prefix" 
> > during Macports installation of a package. If yes, then we can include it 
> > in our MXE. This will eliminate the need for the presence of Macports 
> > gfortran in the target system in order to run Octave.
> 
> Anirudha,
> 
> I am a bit confused here, is MacPorts required during the build process or is 
> it required to run the Octave binary as well?
> 
> otool -L 
> ./mxe-octave-anirudha/dist/octave.app/Contents/Resources/bin/octave-3.7.5 
> reports dynamic library paths to Macports. So it means MacPorts will be 
> required to run Octave. I was proposing that the prefix for MacPorts 
> installation could be the HOST_LIBDIR of MXE, so that these libraries can be 
> included in the app bundle. In this way it might be possible to eliminate 
> need for MacPorts from the target, if not from the host.
> 
> If MacPorts is required, why not just do:
> 
> sudo port mdmg octave
> 
> from macports? this will produce a binary distribution of Octave and its 
> dependencies on a disk image.
> 
>> If you check the MacPorts website,  you will see that the latest version of 
>> Octave is 3.6.4.

That's because 3.6.4 is the latest stable release, the new portfile will not be 
created until there is a new release.

>> Creating an app bundle entirely from MacPorts is not a completely on the fly 
>> solution.

No, of course, it would still require updating the portfile for the new version 
of Octave, 
but it saves the effort of creating and maintainig build scripts for all the 
dependencies.

>> MXE is a unified solution which will enable anyone to build a version of 
>> Octave for their systems with minimal knowledge about build systems.
>> 
> 
> Sorry if the question sounds stupid, as I said I'm just getting started 
> trying to understand your binary packaging approach.
> 
> If we can compile MacPorts with MXE and include it in our MXE directory, then 
> I think we should be able to install the various dependencies inside our MXE 
> usr/ directory. This way we can --
> 
> 1. Install packages which can only be installed through MacPorts (Example, 
> gfortran)
> 2. Eliminate need for installed MacPorts in the target machine.

But, if Macports is required, why not use it for ALL dependencies rather than 
mixing up different approaches?

Please note that I am not at all suggesting we SHOULD do this, just trying to 
understand ...

c.