I just downloaded this file:
ftp://dicom.offis.de/pub/dicom/offis/so ... ic.tar.bz2
The web site says its a staticly linked library...
When I extract dcmtk-3.6.0-mac-i686-static.tar.bz2 I get:
dcmtk-3.6.0-mac-i686-dynamic
bin etc include lib share
Am I confused?
binary distribution for mac.
Moderator: Moderator Team
-
- DCMTK Developer
- Posts: 2051
- Joined: Fri, 2004-11-05, 13:47
- Location: Oldenburg, Germany
- Contact:
Re: binary distribution for mac.
Hi,
seems the directory name inside the archive is wrong; looking into the subfolders the libraries are named .a and the binaries are that large that they must be static in my eyes. I don't have a mac right now to check. Maybe you have one and just could run one of the binaries.
Sorry for inconvenience,
Michael
seems the directory name inside the archive is wrong; looking into the subfolders the libraries are named .a and the binaries are that large that they must be static in my eyes. I don't have a mac right now to check. Maybe you have one and just could run one of the binaries.
Sorry for inconvenience,
Michael
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Tue, 2007-08-07, 19:31
Re: binary distribution for mac.
I tried using dcm2xml without any issues.
Does that prove that it is a staticly linked executable?
Does that prove that it is a staticly linked executable?
-
- OFFIS DICOM Team
- Posts: 1445
- Joined: Tue, 2004-11-02, 17:22
- Location: Oldenburg, Germany
- Contact:
Re: binary distribution for mac.
Both static and dynamic versions should run without issues. A dynamic binary loads some shared objects (C++ runtime) at application startup, whereas a static binary has all libraries "statically" linked into one monolithic file. Dynamic binaries are smaller, static binaries avoid version depedencies - this is mostly a matter of personal preference and should not make much difference to the end user.I tried using dcm2xml without any issues.
Does that prove that it is a staticly linked executable?
-
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Tue, 2007-08-07, 19:31
Re: binary distribution for mac.
Correct me if I am wrong, I chose static because I thought I would not have to worry about the executables location in the systems PATH nor any other environment variables that would have to be set such that the application would be able to find it's libraries. Hence I chose static.
Cheers.
Danke!
Cheers.
Danke!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest