binary distribution for mac.

Compilation and installation of DCMTK

Moderator: Moderator Team

Post Reply
Message
Author
JustSomeGuy
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue, 2007-08-07, 19:31

binary distribution for mac.

#1 Post by JustSomeGuy »

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?
:roll:

Michael Onken
DCMTK Developer
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri, 2004-11-05, 13:47
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: binary distribution for mac.

#2 Post by Michael Onken »

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

JustSomeGuy
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue, 2007-08-07, 19:31

Re: binary distribution for mac.

#3 Post by JustSomeGuy »

I tried using dcm2xml without any issues.
Does that prove that it is a staticly linked executable?

Marco Eichelberg
OFFIS DICOM Team
OFFIS DICOM Team
Posts: 1437
Joined: Tue, 2004-11-02, 17:22
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
Contact:

Re: binary distribution for mac.

#4 Post by Marco Eichelberg »

I tried using dcm2xml without any issues.
Does that prove that it is a staticly linked executable?
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.

JustSomeGuy
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue, 2007-08-07, 19:31

Re: binary distribution for mac.

#5 Post by JustSomeGuy »

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!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest