Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote: > > > Sorry, I was trying to be funny and I guess I wasn't clear. There was a
blush. > 10.3 machine in the build farm for a long while. Then Gem stopped > building on 10.3, so I dropped the 10.3 machine. I don't know if > current versions of Gem build on 10.3, but last I tried Gem definitely > did not build on 10.3. And I posted on this list about it back then too. right the archive show something in 2006-11. re-reading the archives, i see that it is not very clear on the final result: it might as well have worked after my fixes back then. > For the last Pd-extended release for 10.3, I actually manually included > an older Gem build. So my guess is that Gem still does not build on > 10.3, and if we are going to use the -mmacosx-version-min flag, it > should be set appropriately. again: mmacosx-version-min is about the target platform, not the compile platform. i guess one can use a recent compiler and recent features of this compiler and still run on a target machine that would not be able to compile the entire shebang. so the question is not whether it builds on 10.3 but whether it runs on 10.3 > > As for freetype, its included starting in 10.5 in /usr/X11/lib. That > means if you want to build on 10.5 and have it be compatible with 10.4, > you need to include an -isysroot flag to force the build to use the 10.4 > SDK. darn. but this means that the macosx-version-min doesn't help us here either. fmgasd IOhannes
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ GEM-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
