On Thu, 20 Jun 2013 01:52:10 -0700, David Lowe
<doctorjl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 8:02 PM, Alexander Hansen wrote:
>
> > In view of simplifying our lives we've got a few options here:
> > > 1) EOL 10.5, and defer 10.6 for a while. This could be done >
> essentially immediately, with all of the 10.5 packages being stashed
> in > a 10.5-EOL directory similarly to we do for 10.4.
> > > 2) EOL 10.5 and 10.6/i386, keeping 10.6/x86_64 around for a
> while > longer. This will take additional tweaks to fink but I don't
> know of a > reason at this point that precludes this.
> > > 3) EOL 10.5 and 10.6. This is probably the simplest option,
> because it > just requires people to stop committing to the 10.4/
> tree, and a new > fink release which is set only to acknowledge 10.7
> and later.
> > > Anyway, feedback would be appreciated.
>
> For my own selfish reasons, i prefer #1. I have several working
> machines that aren't acceptable to 10.7 or newer, and frankly i've
> come to loath Lion on the one that is. I have no intention of moving
> to 10.8 as it seems to be moving further in the wrong direction, and
> will probably end up reinstalling 10.6 when support for 10.7 is
> dropped. Sébastien rightfully mentions the tradition of supporting
> only two recent versions of the OS. Well, yeah, Apple used to only
> support two recent versions. It is, however, *still* providing
> updates to Snow Leopard. I don't have any numbers, but browsing web
> forums leads me to believe that masses of Macs are stuck at 10.6.
10.6 was the last system to support Rosetta (thanks for the reminder,
cirdan), and I know a bunch of sites are keeping some machines at 10.6
because they still need that. I can't think of a reason to keep
10.6/i386 though. Now that we've moved so many years in the x86_64
world, is there anything in active development that is not in the new
arch? Would be good to check and see is there are any things we missed
though. And 10.6/i386 is harder to support (requires actual
test-building and sometimes arch-specific tweaks) than 10.6/x86_64
because it's not the native arch for the machine (whereas "it works on
10.{>6}/x86_64 therefore it'll probably be okay as-is on 10.6/x86_64"
is usually true). So I lean towards #2, with #3 my second choice
(because it really is easy and we really are over-extended with what we
can actually support by a lot).
dan
(and try migrating it to as many new platforms
use special-purpose software that needs that feature.
need for that feature.
>
> Now that i've said my piece, is there anything i can do to assist?
>
> Sent from Darlene-Lowes-Mac-mini
>
> River Tam: "Also? I can kill you with my brain."
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
>
> Build for Windows Store.
>
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Fink-devel mailing list
> Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> List archive:
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
> Subscription management:
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
>
>
--
Daniel Macks
dma...@netspace.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows:
Build for Windows Store.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Fink-devel mailing list
Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List archive:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel
Subscription management:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
