On Apr 29, 2010, at 5:10 AM, Michael Tüxen wrote:
> On Apr 29, 2010, at 2:52 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
>> so we could
>>
>> offer nothing to Mac OS X 10_[0-4]*;
>
> This is what we do right now.
I'd assumed we were already doing some of this, as I knew we checked the CPU
type.
>> offer the 64-bit Intel Snow Leopard version to Intel Mac OS X
>> 10_[6-9]*, perhaps with a warning that if you have a non-64-bit-capable
>> machine you should get the Leopard version instead.
>
> That is a good plan. However, for now, I would suggest to support only Mac OS
> 10_6*.
> If Apple can provide Mac OS X 10_7*, 10_8* and 10_9* running on current
> hardware, I'm
> happy to provide test machines.
In general, the intent is to have Mac OS X 10.{n+1} be binary-compatible with
Mac OS X 10.{n}, although the X11 libraries don't always succeed there, so my
inclination would be to offer the Snow Leopard build to all post-SL versions -
until they're released, it'll just be people in Apple and people seeded with
pre-releases using it, and they should know they're living on the edge, and,
once they're released, presumably they'll submit bugs if it doesn't work, and
either we or Apple should get the bugs and fix them.
> But I'm very disappointed that we have no plans for
> supporting Mac OS 10_10* and higher right now...
I figured I'd leave Intel Mac OS X 10_[1-9][0-9]* out of the regexp to keep
things simple. :-) (And the actual regexp should have ended with [_0-9]* in
both cases - I guess I was thinking of shell wildcard patterns rather than
regexps.)
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
