Yeah, my money is on 11.X being the 11.X SDK since that is typically the pattern with iOS.
On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 10:21 PM Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 19 Nov 2020, at 3:07 am, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Nov 18, 2020, at 21:04, Chris Jones wrote: > >> > >> On 19 Nov 2020, at 2:31 am, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> > >>>> On Nov 18, 2020, at 20:28, Saagar Jha wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Nov 18, 2020, at 18:12, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Based on the fact that Apple has released a beta of macOS Big Sur > 11.1 already, we can now see that Big Sur should be referred to as version > 11, not 11.0 (and it would be reasonable to expect that next year's macOS > will be version 12). > >>>>> > >>>>> If you are fixing any ports that had been coded to assume the macOS > version was always 10.x, be sure that you're not fixing it to simply accept > versions 10.x or 11.x. Instead, remove any assumption about the version > number so that you won't have to revisit the problem again every year. > >>>>> > >>>>> When Josh released MacPorts 2.6.4 recently, he used the number 11.0 > on the Big Sur installer package. For the next version, we should use the > version number 11 to denote Big Sur. > >>>>> > >>>>> I did the same when naming the Big Sur buildbot machines and will > change them from 11.0 to 11 soon. > >>>>> > >>>>> Part of our decision to use "11.0" came from the way that Apple > named the SDK: MacOSX11.0.sdk. We will have to see if they change this to > MacOSX11.1.sdk in a future version of Xcode and the CLT. If they do, that > would represent a change from their previous strategy, and it would be a > problem for MacPorts because the SDK path gets baked into some ports. > Previously this was ok since the SDK path would stay the same for the life > of the OS version, but if it now changes during the life of the OS we may > find ourselves needing to rebuild some ports to update their SDK paths. > >>>>> > >>>>> We may also need to adjust how MacPorts selects the SDK version and > SDK path, depending on whether Apple changes the SDK name. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>>> The macOS SDK in Xcode 11.3 is MacOSX11.1.sdk. > >>> > >>> Presumably you mean Xcode 12.3. > >>> > >>> But ok, then this will suck, and users on Big Sur will need to make > sure that they use an Xcode version that has the right SDK for their > *minor* OS version. > >> > >> Maybe macports should move away from using the versioned sdk and just > use the versionless link instead, which should also be present... > > > > MacPorts should be falling back to MacOSX.sdk if the versioned one is > not available: > > > > > https://github.com/macports/macports-base/commit/73ee4b496ffb35ae8c57606580c8b2e7cd440b34 > > > > However we would rather use the versioned one to be sure it's the right > version. Software written specifically for Macs may be able to deal with a > newer-than-OS-version SDK, but most software in MacPorts isn't written > specifically for Macs and can't always cope with that. > > I guess we will have to wait and see how much of a pain the sdk version > changing each minor os update, if thats what is indeed going to happen, > will be, and then decide whats the lesser evil here.. > > > >
