> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
< snip >
>> Although I have started porting the apps (using QT), there still will be
>> no Mac-version. QT is available for Mac too, but I still will not bother.
>> The initial costs to port it to Mac would not be made back in several
> I develop in GNU/Linux and usually only build for GNU/Linux and Windows,
> usually using cross-compile in GNU/Linux using MingW and test using wine,
> but have build environments Windows, GNU/FreeBSD and Mac OS X setup. These
> build environments are setup in virtual machines.
> With a single command I can build for them all. It starts the virtual
> machines, copies the tar ball, uncompresses, configures, makes, tests,
> packages, copies the package back and terminates the virtual machine. It
> took some work to get everything automated and I don't use it much but
> just saying that I can do it makes me look cool. Am I a geek or what? :)
Well, I try to not use the wine route, although nearly all windows apps I've
done the last years work flawlessly in wine.
So, by using QT I get a source code which compiles on linux, windows and
OSX, without any change. Works like a treat
But still, the app(s) are that big and have so many features that it is a
absolute *must* to test them on their native environment.
So, I'd not only have to buy the extra OSX QT-licence, I would also have to
buy a otherwise totally useless Mac to compile / test / run the apps. Since
anything apple not as slow as a slug on tranquilizer this means real dough
to hand over, in addition to the QT licence
No, thanks. I gladly pass that one
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.