SIRHUMPHALOT  Looks like you need to run it from the User/Applications folder or it won't launch. Try moving it to your Applications folder if you're having trouble. I'll drop the dev an email.  
(Version 2.9.9_2009-11-25-503)

MISHA  You should probably contact the dev and ask him to link to your 2.8 version:

http://www.bunkus.org/videotools/mkvtoolnix/contact.html

We can also host/distribute it from here, if you want to upload the file to this listing (you might need to create a MU dev account and claim ownership of the listing first to upload the file):

http://www.macupdate.com/developer

http://www.macupdate.com/submission/prodinfo.php?id=16837  
(Version 2.7)

GNOMMAK  Try this

http://rapidshare.com/files/220818585/Mkvtoolnix_2.6.0_And_Libs.dmg

I fix it  
(Version 2.6)

LOKHEED  GNONMACK

Your solution isn't good. You shouldn't place anything outside of the Mkvtoolnix.app program. All those libraries shouldn't be compiled into the Mac version and if they are indeed necessary, they should be placed in it (i.e., Mkvtoolnix.app/Contents/Frameworks/ ), where they belong.  
(Version 2.7)

LEOOFBORG  GNOMMAK's solution 'works' for MkToolnix. It's really the author's fault for not linking inside the app bundle.

The two places that the libs SHOULD go is either inside the app bundle or into /Library/Application Support/MkToolnix/

/opt/ is usually reserved for Fink or Darwinports as far as I know...

I've emailed the dev asking him to either put the libs in the bundle or have a separate installer for the libs, and haven't received a reply yet.

There are other devs who handle external libs gracefully; MPlayer has a separate pkg for codecs, and FFMpegX has a dialog that tells you you need the libs. So there are other examples of 'the right way to do it.'  
(Version 2.7)

GNOMMAK  I know that it is wrong solution. But I don't know the script of creation of the program. By the way it is not my problem I didn't create this program, I only compelled it to work for those who needed it. If you know better solution I listen. Only 77swords try to get work this program and me too, but nobody of you.  
(Version 2.7)

LEOOFBORG  GNOMMAK, I didn't blame you, 77swords and you did good work to get this hack of MkvToolnix to work. It's a good solution if the user is experienced enough.

I only wanted to tell the developer how to properly build the application, and tell other users why it doesn't work without your libs, or ones they have to compile from source-code.

The problem is that random files posted to Rapidshare could be a security risk, or be incompatible with other user's machines [PPC/Intel/Universal]. I'm sure you would agree, right?  
(Version 2.7)

LOKHEED  Confirmed. Crashes on start. 10.5.6, MBP.  
(Version 2.6)

CORTIG  Your instructions ask to install in /opt/local/lib which is not a standard destination on MacOS X distributions. Are you sure about the destination??  
(Version 2.6)

GNOMMAK  yes i am sure in /opt/local/lib create it.  
(Version 2.6)

MICHAEL HALE  I'm unable to make this work; I've created the /opt/local/bin folder(s) but am stuck at running the next steps.

Almost no experience w/Terminal sadly.

Any help will be gratefully received.  
(Version 2.6)

NAUGHTIUSMAXIMUS  Confirmed.

Tried MMG module in my existing MKVMERGE app, same result.  
(Version 2.5.3)

DOUG S.  Playback is fine on my MacBook Pro (2.33ghz, 3GB RAM, ATI X1600 256MB VRAM). And I'm talking about 1080p videos, though I'm watching in VLC and not QuickTime.  
(Version 2.5.3)

RITSUKA  matroska is not a codec, but a container format. So all your rant is just plain wrong.  
(Version 2.0)

TIAGO  Ritsuka is correct...

I really can't understand so much hate coming from an uninformed individual... Take a chill pill and go educate yourself man...

By the way, this software works great for me and I use it all the time to add/remove audio tracks and subtitles from my mkv files... Never had any problem doing so...  
(Version 2.0)

DOUG S.  Just because Matroska is a container and not a codec doesn't mean it's not a bad one. The reason it is a bad container format is because it allows you to mix and match whatever you want.

Example: I have one now that's an h264 with OGG Vorbis audio with a styled subtitle layer over all.

Do I like the ability to have multiple audio and video tracks? Yes. Subtitles that I can turn off? Oh god yeah. But you end up with three obscure formats in a container that is already badly supported by standard programs.

Yes, they have flexibility of what you can use, but that's only a benefit when the formats used are well supported. MKV just perpetuates fanboys who keep telling themselves that their proprietary format is better than the standard one even when the reason one is standard and the other isn't is because the other is actually superior in any number of ways.

Oh, and I'm not an uneducated one I'm a web designer. My job relies on the ability to distribute content to a mass audience with the maximum level of compatibility. Matroska is almost as bad as Microsoft when it comes to this.  
(Version 2.0)

TIAGO  Well, other containers also allow you to mix whatever you want... Both .AVI and .WMV allow xvid, h264, for example... Of course, just because it is possible, doesn't mean that it is desireable, but that's a whole different story...

I agree that OGG vorbis audio is not the most popular format around (definitely not), but it's so unpopular that I almost never come across it...

Anyway, as far as my comprehension goes, it doesn't make any sense to blame a container format for the bad decisions of its users...  
(Version 2.0)

DOUG S.  It is true that both AVI and WMV allow a collection of codecs to be used, but in my mind these aren't that much better than MKVs anyway.

As for blaming a codec for the way it's used by it's users... I'm a designer and if there is a way I know my sites shouldn't be used I make sure to remove the functionality.

Besides, that still doesn't make up for the horrible support of the container on most platforms. If you go to Matroska's home page you'll see the minimal amount of support for Linux and OS X.

Thankfully the digital world is moving more to open source and standards compliancy. So much so that even Microsoft, the worst out of all, has begun to toe the line.  
(Version 2.0)

AIKOUSHA  Actually Ritsuka was half right. I wrote that at the end of a large work session and screwed up. I misused the word codec instead of container, and if Ritsuka had actually read the whole thing, he or she would have realized that. I made a mistake that had the same meaning and importance as a typo. I stand by my views on Matroska, THE CONTAINER. And re-assert the fact that using this only partially alleviates all the "F-U"s that Window-centric selfish users dump onto the non-windows (and old windows) community.

I applaud those that are willing to code this for non-windows machines, and hope the quirks involved with this lousy experimental container can at least be ironed out well enough, so we can at least trans-code out of it.  
(Version 2.0)

MISHA  MKV plays back pretty well in VLC on a Mac. The advantages of MKV over mp4 are pretty substantial. If you're technically inclined, read about it on Wikipedia. For me, I like the fact that it supports AC3 5.1 audio, something mp4 doesn't really do (and don't get me started on QuickTime playing Dolby Digital 5.1 audio).

You only need a newer machine for MKV because they're typically x264 encodes, often high-profile which is quite CPU intensive to decode.  
(Version 2.0)

WARRENPEACE  It doesn't matter how potentially great a 'container' is if it won't play on anything. If you watch stuff on y our computer -- fine. If you want to watch a video file on something, anything that connects to your television that is not a computer, it's annoying. That's the point the guy was trying to make, not argue the technical merits of mkv over another. Doesn't play on XBox360, PS3, Divx DVD players or AppleTV, which are the common, mainstream devices people are using.  
(Version 2.3)

DRBONES666  Thanks to the author for giving me the tools to covert this piece of shit .mkv file into something useful.  
(Version 2.3)

PACOBELL  @WARRENPEACE: "If you want to watch a video file on something, anything that connects to your television that is not a computer, it's annoying.[...] common, mainstream devices people are using."

I've got myself a Popcorn Hour A-110, a flavor of Network Media Tank (of which there are many nowadays), that plays MKVs just fine in full 1080p glory. How's that for "mainstream"? Matroska is stable and the future of HD x264 encodes. Get with the program, people! Oh, and I can play MKVs just fine on OSX with Mplayer OSX Extended, VLC, and Plex. Ignorance is no excuse.   
(Version 2.3)

DOUG S.  Clarification of Terms:

Mainstream: From a major brand such as Sony, Panasonic, Toshiba, Apple, Microsoft...

Matroska is in no way even remotely mainstream.  
(Version 2.3)

PACOBELL  Well, then screw all the mainstream posers. Get what works. The hardware is readily available NOW (same DSP chip) for the fraction of the cost of a full-blown blu-ray player and without all the headaches of blu-ray.   
(Version 2.3)