Just pulled down the Mac OS X 1.1.9rc1 DMG. When I try to launch it it fails (no error message or anything.) I tried launching it from the terminal using the command:
Exult.app/Contents/MacOS/exult
and the output I got was:
dyld: Exult.app/Contents/MacOS/exult can't open library: /sw/lib/libSDL_mixer-1.2.0.dylib (No such file or directory, errno = 2)
Trace/BPT trap
Looks like it is looking for the SDL_mixer dylib in the standard Fink directory?? Previous builds have not required the installation of Fink.
Notwithstanding the fact that I (and *all* the other Mac OS X users I know) don't like fink and refuse to install it.. you can rest assured that requiring fink will be the kiss of death for exult use under Mac OS X. Non-developers (aka average users) of Mac OS X will never install it.
Can we please go back to static linking, or start using embedded framework versions of the required libraries?
OSX Version Requires Fink?!
Forum rules
NOTICE: This forum is archived as read only.
Please use the Github Discussions at https://github.com/exult/exult/discussions
NOTICE: This forum is archived as read only.
Please use the Github Discussions at https://github.com/exult/exult/discussions
Re: OSX Version Requires Fink?!
. Why do people always have to forget their manners when writting on the net? Anyways, I guess that means I can now forget mine, too 
First off: there is a fixed, static linked binary online now. Not linking it statically was simply a mistake in the build process, no "evil intention", as you seem to believe.
Now, I can't resist commenting a bit on the rest of you inflammatory comment
...
Notwithstanding the fact that I (and *many* the other Mac OS X users I know) like and use Fink and refuse to use a machine where it is not installed -- (and clearly, this is completely irrelevant, just as your remark was irrelevant) -- you can rest assued that telling us that this is (in your eyes, at least) the kiss of death for exult use under Mac OS X will, at most, cause us to regretful shrug, then continue.
It's not as if we had money to loose... As long as we can, we try to our best to support OS X users just like anybody else. And are grateful for any constructive criticism, and usually act promplty on it. But threats against our "market share", are just plain silly.
Can we please go back to serious discussion, or start using separate forums for silly flame wars like this? Preferably ones which I don't read. A good step toward that will be to just tell us when something is wrong, without jumping to conclusions about our intentions. Thanks!
First off: there is a fixed, static linked binary online now. Not linking it statically was simply a mistake in the build process, no "evil intention", as you seem to believe.
Now, I can't resist commenting a bit on the rest of you inflammatory comment
...Notwithstanding the fact that I (and *many* the other Mac OS X users I know) like and use Fink and refuse to use a machine where it is not installed -- (and clearly, this is completely irrelevant, just as your remark was irrelevant) -- you can rest assued that telling us that this is (in your eyes, at least) the kiss of death for exult use under Mac OS X will, at most, cause us to regretful shrug, then continue.
It's not as if we had money to loose... As long as we can, we try to our best to support OS X users just like anybody else. And are grateful for any constructive criticism, and usually act promplty on it. But threats against our "market share", are just plain silly
.Can we please go back to serious discussion, or start using separate forums for silly flame wars like this? Preferably ones which I don't read
. A good step toward that will be to just tell us when something is wrong, without jumping to conclusions about our intentions. Thanks!-
Steven-J-S
Re: OSX Version Requires Fink?!
Fingolfin: I sincerely apologise.
You correctly surmised that I thought that an intentional decision to require fink had been made.. but I did not view such a decision as evil. I don't have anything against fink users and I was not trying to 'threaten' exult's market share in any way. I was trying to point out that it seemed clear to me that a decision to require fink would do the threatening all by itself, since almost all non-developers won't know nor want to know how to get fink set up (at least, that's how it seems to me.)
I was not trying to start a fink-antifink flame war... I just don't think average users should be required to set fink up in order to run non-developer end-user software.
Thankyou for creating a statically linked download. I shall endeavour, in future, to word my posts in such a way that they do not convey hostility I did not intend.
You correctly surmised that I thought that an intentional decision to require fink had been made.. but I did not view such a decision as evil. I don't have anything against fink users and I was not trying to 'threaten' exult's market share in any way. I was trying to point out that it seemed clear to me that a decision to require fink would do the threatening all by itself, since almost all non-developers won't know nor want to know how to get fink set up (at least, that's how it seems to me.)
I was not trying to start a fink-antifink flame war... I just don't think average users should be required to set fink up in order to run non-developer end-user software.
Thankyou for creating a statically linked download. I shall endeavour, in future, to word my posts in such a way that they do not convey hostility I did not intend.
-
Matoda
Re: OSX Version Requires Fink?!
I have no idea what fink is... All I know is that I like playing Ultima 7 and I'd like to drag-and-drop and then double-click something to get it to work. =:-)
OS X Jaguar
OS X Jaguar