Now that I've got the recent build of Icecast running (thanks everyone), I'm wondering about an OS X installer. Icecast would be even more palatable to the less-techy OSX users if there were an installer for the binary. As long as the installer checked for the dependent libs, everything would be straight forward. Has this been discussed before? Jaime Magiera University of Michigan Department of Geological Sciences jaimelm@umich.edu (734) 764-7495
I don't want to pour water on this idea since a nice installer would be helpful for the "less-techy" (had to climb a pretty steep learning curve myself...). But I do want to point out that both "fink" and "darwinports" provide nice ways to install UNIX software such as icecast onto OS X, and they magically fulfill the dependencies etc. Are you aware of those? It's true that they are still primarily command-line tools, so they're still a little intimidating to people who have never launched the Terminal... Personally, I've no idea how to go about creating an OSX installer. Would it even be able to check and fulfill dependencies? Or would it simply need to carry all the other libraries along with it? Dan On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:09:25 -0500, Jaime Magiera <jaime@experienceproductions.com> wrote:> Now that I've got the recent build of Icecast running (thanks > everyone), I'm wondering about an OS X installer. Icecast would be even > more palatable to the less-techy OSX users if there were an installer > for the binary. As long as the installer checked for the dependent > libs, everything would be straight forward. > > Has this been discussed before? > > Jaime Magiera > University of Michigan > Department of Geological Sciences > jaimelm@umich.edu > (734) 764-7495 > > _______________________________________________ > Icecast mailing list > Icecast@xiph.org > http://lists.xiph.org/mailman/listinfo/icecast >-- http://www.mcld.co.uk
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:09:25 -0500, Jaime Magiera <jaime@experienceproductions.com> wrote:> Now that I've got the recent build of Icecast running (thanks > everyone), I'm wondering about an OS X installer. Icecast would be even > more palatable to the less-techy OSX users if there were an installer > for the binary. As long as the installer checked for the dependent > libs, everything would be straight forward. > > Has this been discussed before?As far as I can remember, nobody has discussed this. We don't (as you've probably noticed already) really have much OSX knowledge within the "icecast team", but we'd love to include an installer if someone else were to develop it. Mike
On Mar 14, 2005, at 5:28 PM, Dan Stowell wrote:> I don't want to pour water on this idea since a nice installer would > be helpful for the "less-techy" (had to climb a pretty steep learning > curve myself...).no worries. These are just observations.> But I do want to point out that both "fink" and "darwinports" provide > nice ways to install UNIX software such as icecast onto OS X, and they > magically fulfill the dependencies etc. Are you aware of those? It's > true that they are still primarily command-line tools,In a way, that reinforces the point. The Mac experience, until recently, did not include a terminal. There were a few terminal based applications/environments (Common LISP/MUSIC and a few pseudo-unixes), but for the most part, it was all graphical. A traditional Mac user didn't think along those lines. In general, installation of applications was a straightforward process. You clicked a button, the installer let you know if there were any dependencies or necessary restarts -- and boom -- you get to watch the fuzzy blue thermometer. Basically, I'm describing the same steps as the terminal installer, minus a few important graphical cues. However, those cues, and the overall presentation of the installer, really color the user experience. Apple seems to have made a consistent effort to keep the terminal-esque aspects of BSD hidden as much as possible. Which is probably a good idea. Many Mac users don't really even know what a terminal is. Generally, apps are installed from a disk image; some by dragging the image to the "Applications" folder, some by clicking on an actual installer. Even in OS X Server, Apple tries to move away from the terminal (though not so successfully yet). It's not a big deal by any means. However, I'd be willing to wager that Icecast would substantially increase its Mac user base with a simple GUI installer. Would make my life easier to :)> Personally, I've no idea how to go about creating an OSX installer. > Would it even be able to check and fulfill dependencies? Or would it > simply need to carry all the other libraries along with it?You could go either route. There are installers that can check installed components (by checking in /Library/Receipts/ or in this case, the typical BSD paths). If you did it without including the dependent libs, the installer can pop up a window saying "You cannot install on this disk because [you don't have libxml installed]". The installer can also provide for optional install components, where the dependencies could be installed after a version check. These features are actually provided by a preferred OS X method -- packages. They are created by /Developer/Applications/Utilities/PackageMaker.app and can have multiple pre- and post- install scripts attached to the them. It wouldn't be hard to put an installer together. I was actually going to build one just for my own ease of use. I'd be willing to share that with folks on the list if the Icecast folks don't mind. If they do, I'll scrap the idea and say no more. jaime
On Mar 14, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Michael Smith wrote:> > As far as I can remember, nobody has discussed this....hmmm> > We don't (as you've probably noticed already) really have much OSX > knowledge within the "icecast team",Yep, that was starting to dawn on me :)> but we'd love to include an > installer if someone else were to develop it.Ok, I have to prepare for Netstock the next few days. After Sunday, I can can put something together. Has Netstock been mentioned here? Is anyone else here involved? Jaime