On 6/21/13 8:08 PM, Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> On Jun 20, 2013, at 9:15 AM, Daniel Macks <dma...@netspace.org> wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> 10.5 should definitely go. It should have gone when 10.8 came out. :)
>
> 10.6/i386 is a maintainer's nightmare, especially for someone who maintains a
> lot of perlmods. I have so many packages with crazy hacks just to deal with
> 10.6/i386/pm5100. I personally will NOT put any more effort into them. I have
> no way to test that combination and haven't for quite some time.
>
> I have no particular problem with 10.6/x86_64, but if we do need to start a
> 10.9 tree, I think it's ridiculous to have to maintain THREE separate trees.
> Is there any way that 10.6/x86_64 can be integrated into the existing 10.7
> tree? There should be minimal differences between them. I have way too many
> packages to try to maintain 3 nearly identical copies of them.
>
> Daniel
>
>
It wasn't really Apple's tradition Sebastian was referring to, it was
Fink's tradition prior to 10.6, too. Since 10.4-10.6 had so much in
common for a while, we kept 10.4 around longer than we had in the past.
Right now 10.9 package testing is being done in the 10.7 tree; this may
change, however.
Just so that we're clear: official support for a platform being dropped
means:
1) We'll try to keep things in a working state.
2) Maintainers who want to do updates certainly can.
3) The project disclaims any responsibility for breakage introduced by
#2. :-)
Just like 10.4.
Maintainers should feel free to make package updates for a platform that
the project no longer supports, if they are so inclined, keeping in mind
that all bug reports will be forwarded to them.
In principle 0.34.9 could be the last for 10.5, and we could do that
essentially immediately I'd have liked to have some new features for
the supported platforms in 0.35.0, like the dpkg/apt updates that TheSin
is working on, or git selfupdates, but I don't think they're ready on a
short timeframe.
We definitely don't want to wait until "Mavericks" (WTF!) comes out to
put 10.5 out to stud. 10.6, on the other hand...
--
Alexander Hansen, Ph.D.
Fink User Liaison
My package updates: http://finkakh.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
