Re: [Oorexx-devel] Universal package and rexx.img

As I just found out the hard way it appears that it is possible to build for BOTH architectures on X86 or ARM but only if you build for a “fat binary”, thus I can only build an X86 binary in the VM running on Intel hardware. Enrico explained why in [bugs:#1931].

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Universal package and rexx.img

Dear P.O., On 15.01.2024 20:51, oorexx wrote: I wanted to split the macOS installer and have prepared 2 new jobs. I have disabled ooRexx-macOS12-build and created ooRexx-macOS12-X86_64-build and ooRexx-macOS12-ARM64-build. ... cut ... (looks o.k. to me :) ) ... cut ... Finally we have to lo

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Universal package and rexx.img

I wanted to split the macOS installer and have prepared 2 new jobs. I have disabled ooRexx-macOS12-build and created ooRexx-macOS12-X86_64-build and ooRexx-macOS12-ARM64-build. I have then replaced in those jobs -DBUILD_OSX_UNIVERSAL_BINARIES=1 With (respectively) -DBUILD_X86_64_BINARIES=1

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Universal package and rexx.img

Feel free to ignore this as I am NOT a MacOS user.  I feel that having 2 packages is the more straightforward way to proceed rather than continuing with the complexity of a universal package even though that may be "common" on the MacOS platform.  My 2 cents, FWIW. Gil On 1/13/2024 2:12 PM, o

Re: [Oorexx-devel] Universal package and rexx.img

The bitness (64 bit) and the endianness (little-endian) is the same, the architecture is the only difference. But I have no objection to split the macOS installer, all that is needed is to create two new jobs on Jenkins with the different settings. Any objections? Hälsningar/Regards/Grüsse, P.