Hi,
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 06:59:01PM +, Christopher Jones wrote:
> If it where my choice, I would drop OSX releases < say 10.10… It
> isn’t, and thats fine, but thats just my opinion.
In case you were not aware, that's more or less our policy. We
officially support current - 3, that's 10.10
On 22.03.2018 at 19:59 Christopher Jones wrote:
> Lets leave this here, as we aren’t going to agree on this it seems.
It has never been my aim to make you agree with me. I was just trying to make
it a little more plausible why some people might still want to stick with
outdated
software ;-)
--
Hi
> On 22 Mar 2018, at 5:21 pm, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
>
> On 20.03.2018 at 23:59 Chris Jones wrote:
>
>> You can call these OSes ‘retro’ if you want, to make it sound good,
>> but all they really are, are outdated and insecure.
>
> By the way, another reason to use "outdated and insecure"
On 20.03.2018 at 23:59 Chris Jones wrote:
> You can call these OSes ‘retro’ if you want, to make it sound good,
> but all they really are, are outdated and insecure.
By the way, another reason to use "outdated and insecure" operating
systems from a programmer's point of view is backwards compatib
On 2018-03-20, at 2:27 PM, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I do not understand why you are still running such an old
>> machine with macOS.
>
> It's retro, there doesn't have to be a rational reason for it :-)
> Besides, in the retro scene 10.4 is quite popular because it's the
>
On 21 Mar 2018, at 14:23, miniupnp wrote:
On the other hand, it is also fun to read message about someone afraid
of his hardware burned by a hours long macports build :)
This is a serious concern. I've had 3 Macs (Cube, G5 iMac, MacBook) that
got worse at heat dissipation over time to the po
On 20.03.2018 at 23:51 Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> There is not a great deal of interest in Tiger anymore, but I
> understand that the computers that are still running Tiger are slow
> and are thus the ones that might most benefit from the existence of binaries.
Definitely. Having binaries would be a g
Le 21.03.2018 à 19:29, Daniel J. Luke a écrit :
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:23 PM, miniupnp wrote:
>> It's quite fun to read exhortations to use upgrade to a more recent
>> system. I'm trying to imagine which hacker could spend time to exploit
>> Mac PPC machines to include them in a bitcoin mining bo
On Mar 21, 2018, at 2:23 PM, miniupnp wrote:
> It's quite fun to read exhortations to use upgrade to a more recent
> system. I'm trying to imagine which hacker could spend time to exploit
> Mac PPC machines to include them in a bitcoin mining botnet ;)
or DDOS or SPAM or other abusive behavior th
I'm one of the guys who run a 10.4 G4 "just because I can". Some call it
retro computing :)
I'm glad macports still supports it and try to help to fix things when a
port is not building on it.
but I'm not expecting the project to spend resources in building
binaries for this kind of system.
When I
On 21.03.2018 at 00:34 David Strubbe wrote:
> For the record, you can always stop a build by typing CTRL-C, and
> it will not corrupt anything. Only at the install stage are any
> files permanently changed. If you do "port clean" after stopping the
> build, you will be right back where you were be
On 20.03.2018 at 23:59 Chris Jones wrote:
> You can call these OSes ‘retro’ if you want, to make it sound good,
> but all they really are, are outdated and insecure.
I've always preferred freedom over security. And by the way, I have
a feeling that with each new Mac OS version the system becomes
For the record, you can always stop a build by typing CTRL-C, and it will
not corrupt anything. Only at the install stage are any files permanently
changed. If you do "port clean" after stopping the build, you will be right
back where you were before the build.
David
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:13
Hi,
Chris Jones wrote:
IMHO we shouldn't do anything to support Mac OS versions that aren't getting
security patches from Apple anymore (since it's a dis-service to the rest of
the people who use the internet when we make it easier for people to keep
unpatched machines connected to that share
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 9:27 pm, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
>
>> On 20.03.2018 at 21:58 Rainer Müller wrote:
>>
>> Personally, I do not understand why you are still running such an old
>> machine with macOS.
>
> It's retro, there doesn't have to be a rational reason for it :-)
> Besides, in the
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 8:48 pm, Daniel J. Luke wrote:
>
>> On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Andreas Falkenhahn
>> wrote:
>> IMHO there really should be prebuilt binaries for 10.4. It's a waste of
>> energy and resources to have everybody build this on his own...
>
> IMHO we shouldn't do anything
> On 20 Mar 2018, at 8:43 pm, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
>
>> On 20.03.2018 at 21:35 Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>
>> On 10.5 you installed a prebuilt binary.
>> gcc6 takes 12 to 24 hrs to build on a PPC machine.
>
> Oh my, that's too much for me, I've just hit CTRL-C. Of course this might
> leave
On Mar 20, 2018, at 15:32, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
> Where does this difference come from? On my 10.5 G5 PowerMac it really was
> just a few minutes and now it's taking hours. Yes, the G5 is faster but
> certainly not that much. To me it looked as if on 10.5 binaries were
> downloaded and insta
+1.
Uli
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:27 PM, Andreas Falkenhahn
> wrote:
>
> On 20.03.2018 at 21:58 Rainer Müller wrote:
>
>> Personally, I do not understand why you are still running such an old
>> machine with macOS.
>
> It's retro, there doesn't have to be a rational reason for it :-)
> Besides
On 20.03.2018 at 21:58 Rainer Müller wrote:
> Personally, I do not understand why you are still running such an old
> machine with macOS.
It's retro, there doesn't have to be a rational reason for it :-)
Besides, in the retro scene 10.4 is quite popular because it's the
last Mac OS capable of ru
On 2018-03-20 21:43, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
> On 20.03.2018 at 21:35 Ken Cunningham wrote:
>
>> On 10.5 you installed a prebuilt binary.
>> gcc6 takes 12 to 24 hrs to build on a PPC machine.
>
> Oh my, that's too much for me, I've just hit CTRL-C. Of course this might
> leave me with a corrup
On Mar 20, 2018, at 4:43 PM, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
> IMHO there really should be prebuilt binaries for 10.4. It's a waste of
> energy and resources to have everybody build this on his own...
IMHO we shouldn't do anything to support Mac OS versions that aren't getting
security patches from A
On 20.03.2018 at 21:35 Ken Cunningham wrote:
> On 10.5 you installed a prebuilt binary.
> gcc6 takes 12 to 24 hrs to build on a PPC machine.
Oh my, that's too much for me, I've just hit CTRL-C. Of course this might leave
me with a corrupt installation but I'm just too paranoid about Mac Ports
k
On 10.5 you installed a prebuilt binary.
gcc6 takes 12 to 24 hrs to build on a PPC machine.
I should make my premade binaries available.
K
> On Mar 20, 2018, at 14:32, Andreas Falkenhahn wrote:
>
>
>
> So I installed gcc6 on my 10.5 G5 PowerMac a few days ago and it was a breeze.
> It took
So I installed gcc6 on my 10.5 G5 PowerMac a few days ago and it was a breeze.
It took just a few minutes. It looked like the installer just grabbed the
binaries
and installed them. No big deal at all.
Now I am trying to install gcc6 on my 10.4 G4 Mac Mini and it seems to build
everything from
25 matches
Mail list logo
