[R-SIG-Mac] How to make Mac 64-bit version feature complete?

[David Winsemius]

On Dec 16, 2011, at 11:20 AM, Simon Urbanek wrote:

> On Dec 14, 2011, at 11:38 AM, Timothy Bates wrote:
>
>>
>> On 14 Dec 2011, at 4:24 PM, Adam Strzelecki wrote:
>>>> In addition, there is no benefit in creating universal binaries,  
>>>> since they are very Darwin-specific and bring no benefit in this  
>>>> context.
>>>
>>> There's a huge benefit of doing that. I do develop Mac apps, and  
>>> FAT binaries and libs makes the other apps referring to them to  
>>> refer to single file path regardless of architecture. So this is  
>>> benefit for developers. Another benefit is for Mac users, that  
>>> they run single app regardless if they run on PPC, i386 only Intel  
>>> (first Intel Macs ?!) or latest 64-bit Macs.
>>
>>
>> I’ll second that: It makes AppleScripting easier too: Calling  
>> “R.app” always works, instead of every user having to customise  
>> scripts with their app version R64.app vs R.app
>>
>
> That is fair enough. Do other users have an opinion either way?
>

I've never had any confusion at that level of using R.app or R64.app.  
I was really grateful that R64 was there when I needed it. There was  
some confusion about package availability for the 64-bit version a  
couple of years ago, but that seems to have faded away.

>
>> I work around this by deleting one binary and renaming R64 to R.app
>>
>
> You can simply run
>
> lipo -create /Applications/R.app/Contents/MacOS/R \
> /Applications/R64.app/Contents/MacOS/R \
> -o /Applications/R.app/Contents/MacOS/R
>
> That will create the 3-way universal R.app as discussed.

I don't read system commands very well. On my laptop with a hardware  
restriction to 4GB will that load R64.app if it's not needed?

>
> Cheers,
> Simon
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-SIG-Mac mailing list
> R-SIG-Mac at r-project.org
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-sig-mac

David Winsemius, MD
West Hartford, CT