Vcomponents in Mach-O Package

[Dave Addey]

Hi Ruslan,

> You cannot build app as PEF ?

Unfortunately not.  My application declares against the new QuickTime 7
MovieAudioExtraction API (amongst other things), which is not available to
Carbon.  So, I had to switch to a Mach-O build about a year ago.

>> ...yes they do!  As long as it can find the Vcomponents, a Mach-O
>> application will work fine.  My app works fine on a machine with the
>> Vcomponents in CFMSupport.
> 
> Yes we all know this fact.

Sorry :-(

>> Are you *sure* that there is no way to call in to the runtime libraries from
>> a Mach-O compile?
> 
> I have spend a whole day -- no way.
> 
> Macho app DO NOT search for libs in the MacOS folder, not in MacOSClasses,
> not in any other location inside of package.
> 
>> I am positive it is possible and easy to do.
> 
> I have not find ANY way, and any info how todo this.
> Info about MACHO dylibs do not help for CARBON libs.

I believe you :-)  Apologies if I sounded annoyed - I didn't mean it to
sounds rude.  I'm very grateful for the help you've provided on this issue.
It is surprising that it can't be done, but I do believe you.

I guess that when I declare against a Carbon dylib in my /Frameworks/
folder, I am declaring from Mach-O to Carbon. V4RB has to go from Carbon to
"Carbon in another location", and this is not possible.

>> Why should Mach-O be able to call Valentina from
>> CFMSupport, but not able to call it from within its own package?
> 
> Ask Apple about this.
> 
> I have send this question to 3 apple list. Silent in response.
> 
>> It would still be using the same files.  It is simply a case of asking it to
>> look in the right place to find them.
> 
> Right, just it NOT WANT find them.

Understood :-)

>>> What AppBundler cannot do for you ??
>> 
>> AppBundler will not bundle a REALbasic mach-o file, as it is already
>> bundled.
> 
> Not clear. It can make you bundle which works perfectly.

But not from a Mach-O binary - just from a PEF Binary.  I understand now why
Mach-O is the cause of the problem.

> Well, this is not hard. We have macho engine and products already.

Excellent!  Let me know if you want help beta-testing!

> Just I do not see any strong reason why you cannot go by PEF way.

See above.  It took a long time to move from PEF to Mach-O, but I had to do
it.  And now there's no going back...

Thanks for the support,

Dave.