On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Daniel Macks <dma...@netspace.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:52:10 -0700, David Lowe
> <doctorjl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>>
>>> In view of simplifying our lives we've got a few options here:
>>>> 1) EOL 10.5, and defer 10.6 for a while. This could be done >
>> essentially immediately, with all of the 10.5 packages being stashed
>> in > a 10.5-EOL directory similarly to we do for 10.4.
>>>> 2) EOL 10.5 and 10.6/i386, keeping 10.6/x86_64 around for a
>> while > longer. This will take additional tweaks to fink but I don't
>> know of a > reason at this point that precludes this.
>>>> 3) EOL 10.5 and 10.6. This is probably the simplest option,
>> because it > just requires people to stop committing to the 10.4/
>> tree, and a new > fink release which is set only to acknowledge 10.7
>> and later.
>>>> Anyway, feedback would be appreciated.
>>
>> For my own selfish reasons, i prefer #1. I have several working
>> machines that aren't acceptable to 10.7 or newer, and frankly i've
>> come to loath Lion on the one that is. I have no intention of moving
>> to 10.8 as it seems to be moving further in the wrong direction, and
>> will probably end up reinstalling 10.6 when support for 10.7 is
>> dropped. Sébastien rightfully mentions the tradition of supporting
>> only two recent versions of the OS. Well, yeah, Apple used to only
>> support two recent versions. It is, however, *still* providing
>> updates to Snow Leopard. I don't have any numbers, but browsing web
>> forums leads me to believe that masses of Macs are stuck at 10.6.
>
> 10.6 was the last system to support Rosetta (thanks for the reminder,
> cirdan), and I know a bunch of sites are keeping some machines at 10.6
> because they still need that. I can't think of a reason to keep
> 10.6/i386 though. Now that we've moved so many years in the x86_64
> world, is there anything in active development that is not in the new
> arch? Would be good to check and see is there are any things we missed
> though. And 10.6/i386 is harder to support (requires actual
> test-building and sometimes arch-specific tweaks) than 10.6/x86_64
> because it's not the native arch for the machine (whereas "it works on
> 10.{>6}/x86_64 therefore it'll probably be okay as-is on 10.6/x86_64"
> is usually true). So I lean towards #2, with #3 my second choice
> (because it really is easy and we really are over-extended with what we
> can actually support by a lot).
>
> dan
10.5 should definitely go. It should have gone when 10.8 came out. :)
10.6/i386 is a maintainer's nightmare, especially for someone who maintains a
lot of perlmods. I have so many packages with crazy hacks just to deal with
10.6/i386/pm5100. I personally will NOT put any more effort into them. I have
no way to test that combination and haven't for quite some time.
I have no particular problem with 10.6/x86_64, but if we do need to start a
10.9 tree, I think it's ridiculous to have to maintain THREE separate trees. Is
there any way that 10.6/x86_64 can be integrated into the existing 10.7 tree?
There should be minimal differences between them. I have way too many packages
to try to maintain 3 nearly identical copies of them.
Daniel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
