Ah, ok. Thanks. Ya i couldn't find that email when i just googled for it again, 
it's just what i remember finding when i ran into the problem and apple had 
already switched over to doing the symlink thing.

Thanks

Nate

> On May 12, 2021, at 12:39 PM, Chris Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 12 May 2021, at 6:35 pm, Nathaniel W Griswold <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Yes, this looks right. If you are on an older 11.<old> system you will only 
>> have the newest (MacOSX11.3.sdk at this time). This means that macports will 
>> warn you about missing SDK even though it is there and you have all the 
>> tools and everything builds correctly.
>> 
>> There was a past email on this list about the issue and the answer was 
>> "ignore the warning until you have an SDK that matches your system" but this 
>> seems actually not right. The SDKs seem to be backwards compatible since 
>> apple only includes the very newest SDK in each new release of the command 
>> line tools. The correct answer seems to be to use the symlink unless i'm 
>> missing something.
> 
> At the time those statements where made it was correct, as the 11 sym link 
> did not exist, so it was either use the explicit major.minor SDK or the 
> versionless symlink. I guess Apple must have been given enough feedback that 
> this more rapidly evolving sdk version was problematic and thus has started 
> adding the major version only link as a consequence. Assuming it is here to 
> stay then yes this is really now what we should be using I would say.
> 
> Chris
> 
>> 
>> Nate
>> 
>>> On May 12, 2021, at 2:27 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I notice that the Xcode 12.5 CLT (but not Xcode 12.5) now contains a 
>>> MacOSX11.sdk symlink pointing to the MacOSX11.3.sdk. If MacPorts used 
>>> MacOSX11.sdk when available instead of the more-specific version number, it 
>>> would reduce some of the problems we have from baked-in SDK paths in some 
>>> ports. Would be nice if we could fit that change into the MacPorts 2.7.0 
>>> release.
>>> 
>> 
> 

Reply via email to