> On 30 Jan 2018, at 18:42, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote:
> Ned,
> It looks like you're still building OS-X the same way as in the past:
> Intel 32+64 bit, 10.6 compatibility
> Is that right?
> Might it be time for an update?
> Do we still need to support 32 bit?  From:
> https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/99640/how-old-are-macs-that-cannot-run-64-bit-applications
> <https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/99640/how-old-are-macs-that-cannot-run-64-bit-applications>
> There has not been a 32 bit-only Mac sold since 2006, and a out-of the box 32 
> bit OS since 2006 or 2007
> I can't find out what the older OS version Apple supports, but I know my IT 
> dept has been making me upgrade, so I"m going to guess 10.8 or newer…

A binary with a newer deployment target than 10.6 would be nice because AFAIK 
the installers are still build on a system running that old version of OSX. 
This results in binaries that cannot access newer system APIs like openat (and 
hence don’t support the “dir_fd” parameter in a number of function in the os 

> And maybe we could even get rid of the "Framework" builds……

Why?  IMHO Framework builds are a nice way to get isolated side-by-side 
installations. Furthermore a number of Apple APIs (including the GUI libraries) 
don’t work unless you’re running from an application bundle, which the 
framework builds arranges for and normal unix builds don’t. 


Python-Dev mailing list

Reply via email to