Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Riccardo Mottola via macports-users]

Off topic :)

Ken Cunningham wrote:
To get reasonable performance out of these machines I always max out 
the Ram (cheap cheap cheap on Ebay) and in most of them, flip in an SSD.


I tried outting a SSD in mine, but it run hiccups... so I bought a new 
spinning rust HD and that one works fine. Still a performance gain and 
also, plenty of space to build all those packages on 10.5 since there 
are no binaries :) So it is a lot of hit and miss with SSD and 
controllers especially on older machines which do not get any longer 
BIOS upgrades.
In my case the disk was especially recommended by crucial for my Mac, 
but sometimes it just almost froze the computer requiring a reboot... 
super-slow. Either after high usage (swap) or sleep.
Put in aMacBook Pro which has the *same* SATA controller, but surely 
different firmware, OS, etc.. it works.


I just leave it overnight and I usually get the package installed.

Riccardo

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Chris Jones]

On 17/01/18 16:59, Riccardo Mottola wrote:

Hi,

Chris Jones wrote:
many reasons. For instance security. In my view users should always 
migrate their machines to the most up to date OS they can run, one 
that is still receiving security updates, in order to not expose 
themselves to possible issues. 10.5 for sure hasn't received any 
security updates in a long long while...


neither does 10.6 nor 10.7 even.


indeed, ... and I wouldn't run them either on a machine I used for my 
daily digital needs. If I had hardware that could not be updated to an 
OSX version that still received security updates, then I would be 
looking to migrate that machine away from OSX to some other OS (linux).

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Chris Jones]

On 17/01/18 17:31, Ryan Schmidt wrote:

On Jan 17, 2018, at 10:59, Riccardo Mottola wrote:


However 10.5 runs considerably faster on 32bit macs.s and those who cannot take 
4GB of RAM. My own experience


I see; I hadn't heard that feedback before. According to Apple, 10.6 focused 
not on new features but on performance, so it should be faster than 10.5.


Personally, without proper benchmarking proving such claims, I would 
take them with a decent pinch of salt. Otherwise it is just based on 
user perceptions, which are known not to be reliable...





10.5 is pretty speedy and nice on my MacBook, Safari is old,, so in any case 
you will be running some alternative browser which is hopefully more up to date


TenFourFox.

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 17, 2018, at 10:59, Riccardo Mottola wrote:

> However 10.5 runs considerably faster on 32bit macs.s and those who cannot 
> take 4GB of RAM. My own experience

I see; I hadn't heard that feedback before. According to Apple, 10.6 focused 
not on new features but on performance, so it should be faster than 10.5. 

> 10.5 is pretty speedy and nice on my MacBook, Safari is old,, so in any case 
> you will be running some alternative browser which is hopefully more up to 
> date

TenFourFox. 

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Riccardo Mottola via macports-users]

Hi,

Chris Jones wrote:
many reasons. For instance security. In my view users should always 
migrate their machines to the most up to date OS they can run, one 
that is still receiving security updates, in order to not expose 
themselves to possible issues. 10.5 for sure hasn't received any 
security updates in a long long while...


neither does 10.6 nor 10.7 even.

However 10.5 runs considerably faster on 32bit macs.s and those who 
cannot take 4GB of RAM. My own experience


10.5 is pretty speedy and nice on my MacBook, Safari is old,, so in any 
case you will be running some alternative browser which is hopefully 
more up to date


(working on that!)

Riccardo

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 16 06:16:07, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I am stuck with 10.5.8 on this particular machine anyway.
> 
> Are you sure about that? Even my most ancient intel machines, 32bit, can go 
> up past there.

> even a macbook 1,1 can do 10.6.8
> https://everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook/specs/macbook_2.0_black.html

On Jan 16 08:28:29, ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I just checked: a Core Duo is limited to 10.5.8 only
> if it has less than 1GB of RAM, but can run 10.6.8 otherwise.

Mine has 2GB now and still refused the 10.6.8 install
http://stare.cz/dmesg/apple-macbook1,1-A1181.20180113

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Ken Cunningham]

On 2018-01-16, at 6:24 AM, Marius Schamschula wrote:
> 
> I just checked: a Core Duo is limited to 10.5.8 only if it has less than 1GB 
> of RAM, but can run 10.6.8 otherwise.
> 
> Marius

To get reasonable performance out of these machines I always max out the Ram 
(cheap cheap cheap on Ebay) and in most of them, flip in an SSD.

Even my MacOS9 PowerPC machines have SSDs :>

I must have 20 different vintages here. Packrat. 

K

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Marius Schamschula]

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 8:16 AM, Ken Cunningham  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:22 AM, Jan Stary  wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 16 09:49:32, jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> I find it useful to have a ppc builder available to have at least some
> feedback about problems on that platform, but also because any PPC
> machine is super slow and MacPorts is often the most important part
> that actually makes those machines still usable. In most cases the
> port would build on 10.5/i386 if it builds on both 10.5/ppc and 10.6.
 
 Building on more platforms surely is a benefit in itself,
 exposing bugs that only show up on some archs.
>>> 
>>> Building on ancient OSes like 10.5 does not really help in that regard, as
>>> its highly unlike any issues that come up are anything upstream maintainers
>>> of packages would have an interest in fixing.
>> 
>> That depends on the upstream I guess.
>> You don't want your software to run on MacOS 10.5.8?
>> 
>> I understand that some things have changed massively
>> (audio output across 10.5.8 - 10.13.2, anyone?),
>> but basic POSIX C should still work the same.
>> 
>> I am stuck with 10.5.8 on this particular machine anyway.
>> 
>>   Jan
>> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure about that? Even my most ancient intel machines, 32bit, can go 
> up past there.
> 
> K

I just checked: a Core Duo is limited to 10.5.8 only if it has less than 1GB of 
RAM, but can run 10.6.8 otherwise.

Marius
--
Marius Schamschula

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Ken Cunningham]

> On Jan 16, 2018, at 4:22 AM, Jan Stary  wrote:
> 
> On Jan 16 09:49:32, jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
 I find it useful to have a ppc builder available to have at least some
 feedback about problems on that platform, but also because any PPC
 machine is super slow and MacPorts is often the most important part
 that actually makes those machines still usable. In most cases the
 port would build on 10.5/i386 if it builds on both 10.5/ppc and 10.6.
>>> 
>>> Building on more platforms surely is a benefit in itself,
>>> exposing bugs that only show up on some archs.
>> 
>> Building on ancient OSes like 10.5 does not really help in that regard, as
>> its highly unlike any issues that come up are anything upstream maintainers
>> of packages would have an interest in fixing.
> 
> That depends on the upstream I guess.
> You don't want your software to run on MacOS 10.5.8?
> 
> I understand that some things have changed massively
> (audio output across 10.5.8 - 10.13.2, anyone?),
> but basic POSIX C should still work the same.
> 
> I am stuck with 10.5.8 on this particular machine anyway.
> 
>Jan
> 


Are you sure about that? Even my most ancient intel machines, 32bit, can go up 
past there.

K

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 16 09:49:32, jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> > > I find it useful to have a ppc builder available to have at least some
> > > feedback about problems on that platform, but also because any PPC
> > > machine is super slow and MacPorts is often the most important part
> > > that actually makes those machines still usable. In most cases the
> > > port would build on 10.5/i386 if it builds on both 10.5/ppc and 10.6.
> > 
> > Building on more platforms surely is a benefit in itself,
> > exposing bugs that only show up on some archs.
> 
> Building on ancient OSes like 10.5 does not really help in that regard, as
> its highly unlike any issues that come up are anything upstream maintainers
> of packages would have an interest in fixing.

That depends on the upstream I guess.
You don't want your software to run on MacOS 10.5.8?

I understand that some things have changed massively
(audio output across 10.5.8 - 10.13.2, anyone?),
but basic POSIX C should still work the same.

I am stuck with 10.5.8 on this particular machine anyway.

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Mojca Miklavec]

On 16 January 2018 at 10:16, Jan Stary wrote:
>
> What is the proportion of the (would be) 10.5.8 packages to the overal size?
> (No doubt it's a lot of space, but what portion of it is one platform?)

Approximately one divided by the number of platforms. The proportion
can drop if many packages fail to build. We currently have binaries
for:

- 10.5/ppc
- 10.6/i386, 10.6/x86_64
- 10.7/x86_64
...
- 10.13/x86_64

So 10 in total, with a potential desire to support libc++ on 10.6-10.8
(that's 4 extra, but the other 4 would then probably be removed).

I no longer remember the numbers (I made a local mirror two years
ago), but the order of magnitude is around 1 TB (it might be less than
that, but it's definitely hundreds of gigabytes).

Mojca

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Chris Jones]

On 16/01/18 09:55, Jan Stary wrote:

The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that
no users should need it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6)


Why?


many reasons. For instance security. In my view users should always migrate
their machines to the most up to date OS they can run,


Some intel macbooks will not run anything after 10.5.8.


That is why I said most recent OS it can run.
If that Mac OS is then one no longer receiving security updates, then 
personally I would consider migrating that machine away from OSX towards 
another system (say linux) that does support it with an up to date OS. I 
personally would be quite uncomfortable use an unmaintained  OS for my 
daily computing needs...





one that is still receiving security updates,


and having all the new bugs and incompatible frameworks,


two different things. I am talking about the major security issues (like 
Meltdown/Spectra to be topical, or going back a bit the SSL issues) that 
aren't, and never will be, fixed on an ancient OS like 10.5. I don't 
care about the silly little bugs that inevitably come with new OSes, and 
get squash soon after and have no real long term impact.





in order to not expose themselves to possible issues.
10.5 for sure hasn't received any security updates
in a long long while...


(More updates for an OS = more secure OS, clearly.)


IMHO For an OS to be secure it has to be actively receiving new updates 
as required, to react to future threats as they come.




Can you please point me to the list of updates
for the respective releases?


No



Jan



Chris

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

> > > The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that
> > > no users should need it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6)
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> many reasons. For instance security. In my view users should always migrate
> their machines to the most up to date OS they can run,

Some intel macbooks will not run anything after 10.5.8.

> one that is still receiving security updates,

and having all the new bugs and incompatible frameworks,

> in order to not expose themselves to possible issues.
> 10.5 for sure hasn't received any security updates
> in a long long while...

(More updates for an OS = more secure OS, clearly.)

Can you please point me to the list of updates
for the respective releases?

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Chris Jones]

On 16/01/18 09:14, Jan Stary wrote:

On Jan 14 21:47:43, mo...@macports.org wrote:

On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:


A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel

The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is the last
OS supporting PPC machines.


There is no special reason for *not* having the 10.5/intel bot
available except that the demand for it is pretty low and each
buildbot consumes some resources and nobody bothered adding it. If a
lot of users actually requested it (and ideally someone provided
additional hardware resources), I guess it could be added, but this
has not been the case so far.


Out of curiosity, is there some statistics on these demands
(in particular showing the low demand for 10.5.8)? I don't
dispute it, just wondering how minor 10.5.8/{intel,ppc} is nowadays.


I find it useful to have a ppc builder available to have at least some
feedback about problems on that platform, but also because any PPC
machine is super slow and MacPorts is often the most important part
that actually makes those machines still usable. In most cases the
port would build on 10.5/i386 if it builds on both 10.5/ppc and 10.6.


Building on more platforms surely is a benefit in itself,
exposing bugs that only show up on some archs.


Building on ancient OSes like 10.5 does not really help in that regard, 
as its highly unlike any issues that come up are anything upstream 
maintainers of packages would have an interest in fixing.




Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Chris Jones]

On 16/01/18 09:16, Jan Stary wrote:

On Jan 15 22:33:56, ryandes...@macports.org wrote:


On Jan 14, 2018, at 14:47, Mojca Miklavec wrote:


On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:


A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel

The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is the last
OS supporting PPC machines.


There is no special reason for *not* having the 10.5/intel bot
available except that the demand for it is pretty low and each
buildbot consumes some resources and nobody bothered adding it.


The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that
no users should need it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6)


Why?


many reasons. For instance security. In my view users should always 
migrate their machines to the most up to date OS they can run, one that 
is still receiving security updates, in order to not expose themselves 
to possible issues. 10.5 for sure hasn't received any security updates 
in a long long while...





and the packages it would create would take up disk space on all mirrors


What is the proportion of the (would be) 10.5.8 packages to the overal size?
(No doubt it's a lot of space, but what portion of it is one platform?)

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 15 22:33:56, ryandes...@macports.org wrote:
> 
> On Jan 14, 2018, at 14:47, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> 
> > On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:
> >> 
> >> A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel
> >> 
> >> The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
> >> update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is the 
> >> last
> >> OS supporting PPC machines.
> > 
> > There is no special reason for *not* having the 10.5/intel bot
> > available except that the demand for it is pretty low and each
> > buildbot consumes some resources and nobody bothered adding it.
> 
> The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that
> no users should need it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6)

Why?

> and the packages it would create would take up disk space on all mirrors

What is the proportion of the (would be) 10.5.8 packages to the overal size?
(No doubt it's a lot of space, but what portion of it is one platform?)

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 14 21:47:43, mo...@macports.org wrote:
> On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:
> >
> > A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel
> >
> > The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
> > update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is the last
> > OS supporting PPC machines.
> 
> There is no special reason for *not* having the 10.5/intel bot
> available except that the demand for it is pretty low and each
> buildbot consumes some resources and nobody bothered adding it. If a
> lot of users actually requested it (and ideally someone provided
> additional hardware resources), I guess it could be added, but this
> has not been the case so far.

Out of curiosity, is there some statistics on these demands
(in particular showing the low demand for 10.5.8)? I don't
dispute it, just wondering how minor 10.5.8/{intel,ppc} is nowadays.

> I find it useful to have a ppc builder available to have at least some
> feedback about problems on that platform, but also because any PPC
> machine is super slow and MacPorts is often the most important part
> that actually makes those machines still usable. In most cases the
> port would build on 10.5/i386 if it builds on both 10.5/ppc and 10.6.

Building on more platforms surely is a benefit in itself,
exposing bugs that only show up on some archs.

Jan

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Mojca Miklavec]

On 16 January 2018 at 05:33, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
> The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that no users should need 
> it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6) and the packages it would 
> create would take up disk space on all mirrors; we have already had one 
> MacPorts mirror leave because they could no longer accommodate our disk space 
> requirements.

Maybe we could one day provide "big size" and "small size" mirror
sources. The mirrors which can only accommodate small size would then
only mirror the latest two releases and make sure not to include any
outdated distfiles whatsoever.

I'm not saying this in support of 10.5, but unless we start removing
10.6 binaries and so on, our archives will just keep growing each
year. The number of users who need the old binaries is relatively
small compared to those who need one of the latest two, so it should
be sufficient to serve those binaries from a smaller number of
mirrors.

Mojca

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Jan 14, 2018, at 14:47, Mojca Miklavec wrote:

> On 14 January 2018 at 11:40, Chris Jones wrote:
>> 
>> A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel
>> 
>> The assumption I believe being if you have an intel machine, you should
>> update at least to 10.6... the 10.5 buildbot exists because that is the last
>> OS supporting PPC machines.
> 
> There is no special reason for *not* having the 10.5/intel bot
> available except that the demand for it is pretty low and each
> buildbot consumes some resources and nobody bothered adding it.

The reasons for not having a 10.5 Intel builder are that no users should need 
it (all users on 10.5 Intel should upgrade to 10.6) and the packages it would 
create would take up disk space on all mirrors; we have already had one 
MacPorts mirror leave because they could no longer accommodate our disk space 
requirements.

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Riccardo Mottola via macports-users]

Hi Jan,

Jan Stary wrote:

PPC or Intel ?
A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel

Ah, right, my machine is Intel. Thanks.


most stuff works fine on 10.5 and I an happy with that OS which is 
faster than 10.6 if you have 32bit intel CPUs (if you have 64bit, 
indeed, 10.6 is a recommendable update)


You just have longer times... especially with compilers!

Riccardo

Re: binary packages for 10.5.8

[Jan Stary]

On Jan 14 10:40:23, jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk wrote:
> PPC or Intel ?
> A buildbot exists for PPC, but not intel

Ah, right, my machine is Intel. Thanks.

Jan