Our official policy is to support only the two most recent OS versions.
I think I interpret that pretty loosely.
For those working on MacPorts base:
- Don't kill worry too much about keeping stuff alive pre-Tiger, or
about not implementing features that might not work pre-Tiger.
- But don't remove such old support unless it's causing undo clutter
or complexity, or causing you pain.
For port maintainers:
- It's entirely up to you whether you remove support for pre-tiger
ports.
- Once again, I'd say if there's pain involved, then remove the
support, unless you have meaningful reasons not to.
(We do have archives of older MacPorts versions, and port trees, that
might be useful to those trying to support older OS versions).
James
On Jun 13, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:
>
> On Jun 13, 2008, at 1:17 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
>> Given all this, shouldn't we remove the
>> remaining Jaguar-specific code from those 99 ports and declare that
>> MacPorts not only isn't supported on Jaguar and earlier, but that it
>> in fact will not work?
>
> Yes. If even Apple does not officially support Jaguar any longer, I
> see no reason why MacPorts should kill itself attempting to go back
> that far.
>
> - Jordan
>
> _______________________________________________
> macports-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
