At 10:25 PM +0200 6/15/05, Andreas H�schler wrote:
Hi Peter,
I find it discouraging that apps aren't binary
compatible between 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4,
although I understand why. I guess Apple tries
to solve this issue with xCode by creating fat
bundles containing code for all three OS
versions.
You are misinformed.
Apps are absolutely binary compatible from 10.2, 10.3, and 10.4!
Thanks for the info!
Fat binaries are NOT used for different OS
versions, only for different CPU architectures.
In addition, in most cases, things built on
10.4 will also run on OLDER OS versions
What exactly means "most cases" except the
obvious API extension reason? Why does code
built one Jaguar not work on Tiger properly then?
Anything built on Jaguar should work on Tiger.
Period. If it doesn't, there's a bug in the OS,
or the binary was doing something unsupported
from the beginning. Apple spends an amazing
amount of effort on "backwards compatibility".
That's where 10.4 is able to run any binary built
for 10.2, etc..
MOST things built on Tiger (10.4) will also run
on Panther (10.3), etc... That's called
"forwards" compatibility, and it's MUCH harder,
because it means that 10.2 somehow is able to
deal with the FUTURE changes in the OS.
Summary:
Backwards compatibility should always work. The
binary you build today should continue to work
tomorrow unless you do something unsupported.
Forwards compatibility will usually work, but you
shouldn't count on it. If you want to create a
binary using 10.4 tools that will run on 10.2,
you should use the 10.2 SDK.
-pmb
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
