App bundle size weirdness

Feb 3, 2009 at 10:14pm

App bundle size weirdness

Can’t understand how come the size is bigger when overwriting a bundle when building an app… (I’m running Max 5.0.5 with mac OSX 10.5.6)
Could someone confirm what I got ?

just create a stupid patch as this one :

– Pasted Max Patch, click to expand. –

Go to “build collective/application”, and save it anywhere you want as “” for example. Take a look at its size, it should be around 24.4MB (what I got).
Then, go back to max, and build again the same patch at the same place, with the same name, answering yes when you’re asked to replace the file. Take a look at the size.. It’s now 38.5MB !

Can someone reproduces?


Feb 4, 2009 at 10:41am

First time I build, I got only one file in , that is : “Untitled1″ (size : 13.9MB).

Second time I build, I got 2 files :
“Untitled1″ (size : 13.9MB)
“MaxMSP Runtime” (size : 13.9MB)

So it seems there’s a duplication of the runtime when overwriting the bundle…

Has that bug already been reported?

Feb 4, 2009 at 12:28pm

I just forgot to say that in order to reproduce, you have to close the “build script window” and re-open it from the menu between the two successive builds.

Feb 4, 2009 at 1:04pm

> Has that bug already been reported?

When I noticed this for the first time, I made it standard practice to delete manually the older version of the app I built. Not sure if this can be called a bug. Why expect that building an app over an old one would be successful?


Feb 4, 2009 at 1:22pm

> Why expect that building an app over an old one would be successful?

Well, I generally expect that replacing a file replaces the file :)
However there has been a change about that between max 4 and 5 which is really usefull :
If you got some files in /contents/MacOS/ (such as pics or whatever you want), there are not deleted when building over, so you don’t have copy them each time you re-build.
I really enjoy that behaviour, but I really dislike getting 14.9MB more for no reason. :)

So that’s maybe cannot be called a “bug”, but that’s definitely annoying, and I think that it should be corrected if possible.


You must be logged in to reply to this topic.