unknown
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
If it's optional, it's optional. Running ordinary apps under MacOS X
doesn't require its presence. My understanding is that it's mainly
there to support Terminal users and Unix geeks. If it was my company's
product, I'd insist on taking this simple step to make sure my app ran
on a minimal install of the OS.
bundlebuilder.py unless there was some stronger reason than this.
Maybe if the issue comes up again I'll lobby the bundlebuilder
maintainer to accept this change. Just on technical grounds, it seems
clearly the right way to go. Anyway, thanks for being willing to
discuss it.
Cheers,
Tom
doesn't require its presence. My understanding is that it's mainly
there to support Terminal users and Unix geeks. If it was my company's
product, I'd insist on taking this simple step to make sure my app ran
on a minimal install of the OS.
Also, it was not my design to build the bundle this way, I am using
the standard "bundlebuilder.py" routine that is part of the Python
distribtution and is, as far as I can tell, the accepted and
"approved" way to build distributable bundles on MacOS X. To wedge in
a different script would require gutting the work done by
bundlebuilder.py and making it a manual process each time.
I didn't realize that. I'd also be disinclined to muck withthe standard "bundlebuilder.py" routine that is part of the Python
distribtution and is, as far as I can tell, the accepted and
"approved" way to build distributable bundles on MacOS X. To wedge in
a different script would require gutting the work done by
bundlebuilder.py and making it a manual process each time.
bundlebuilder.py unless there was some stronger reason than this.
Maybe if the issue comes up again I'll lobby the bundlebuilder
maintainer to accept this change. Just on technical grounds, it seems
clearly the right way to go. Anyway, thanks for being willing to
discuss it.
Cheers,
Tom