Re: [hatari-devel] Mac OS X work

Thanks for testing Anders and Bob

If anyone on the list has an i386 setup and maybe even OSX 10.5 or 10.6 that would be a good test as well.

Regarding the file size, I saw your earlier comment on that Bob. Was it when we went from v1.8 to 1.9 it ballooned? The current binary (i.e, actual hatari binary, not the whole .app package - and remember it's fat, so both i386 and x64) is 34MB.. I haven't used strip so far, but that brings it down to 29MB, just tested it now. If that's still unexpectedly big I'll have to look into other things.

Sounds good that there are other UI changes not in Mercurial still - then I understand what you have been discussing on the list :)

I also believe the sound thing is due to SDL 2 compared to SDL 1.

/Troed

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 7:31 PM, Bob Carpenter <hatari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I saw Troed’s new Hatari binary. It worked fine for me as well. Like Anders, I do not have Macports installed. The UI glitches were fixed by Jerome some time ago. He also added the missing SDL UI changes (ability to change waitstates and others) to the OS X UI. However, these changes need to be put into Mercurial. There is one UI problem remaining in Jerome’s work that I have found. The “Add GEMDOS drive after ACSI/IDE partitions (Experimental)” option is not being passed from the OS X UI to Hatari. I told Jerome about this, but I assume he has been too busy to fix this.

I have noticed Anders’ comment regarding the fact that Ok is not the default button. This is a very simple change to make to the XIB file in Hatari. I made the change to my copy of the XIB file and it worked in Hatari as expected. I am sure the change could be changed to the repository XIB file if there was agreement to do so.

I have also noticed the sound problem when you bring up the OS X UI. I will leave it to the experienced OS X developers as to whether we can do anything about it or whether we have to wait for SDL to fix the problem. Most of the early SDL problems the OS X version had were solved when the SDL developers updated SDL.

As to Jerome’s comment regarding frameworks, I do not think the typical OS X (should I call it macOS yet?) user cares how it is done just as long as Hatari works as expected. Troed, if you find it easier to create dynamic libraries rather than frameworks, that sounds fine to me. Any of us who want a different binary are free to compile it for ourselves. I was surprised at the size of Troed’s binary, but I am assuming the debugging information was not removed.

Bob C