[GEM-dev] setting -mmacosx-version-min to 10.4

Hans-Christoph Steiner hans at at.or.at
Mon Dec 7 18:15:19 CET 2009


On Dec 7, 2009, at 3:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:

> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 6, 2009, at 4:51 PM, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed while looking into the -fno-common thing that Gem is
>>>> compiling on Mac OS X using -mmacosx-version-min=10.3  AFAIK, Gem  
>>>> hasn't
>>>> built on 10.3 in years.  From my experience, there are less  
>>>> deployment
>>>
>>> do you mean "hasn't built" or "hasn't been built"?
>>> if the former, are the problems fixable.
>
> here the last period was meant to be a question mark.
>
>>> if the latter, it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Well, I think the former is the problem, and if you can't built it on
>> 10.3, then you won't be using 10.3 builds.
>
> this i don't understand.
> if nobody has built on 10.3 for ages, than this is one thing. i have  
> not
> much feedback about the OSX versions people are actually using.
> it's been a long time since the last person complained about not being
> ableto run Gem on 10.3. this might have two reasons:
> - no Gem user uses 10.3 any more
> - Gem does work on 10.3
> - something else
>
> then: i thought the "-mmacosx-version-min=10.3" kind of ensures that  
> the
> build will run on 10.3 even if you are building on 10.5.
> is this a misconception on my side?
> if not, this means that even if you can't build on 10.3, people might
> still be using 10.3 builds.
>
> i (think that i) don't have access to a 10.3 machine, so i cannot  
> really
> test.
> but i would like to not change anything because of mere speculations.
>
>>>> issues if things are built for the most recent supported version  
>>>> (i.e.
>>>> 10.4).
>>>
>>> which "issues"?
>>
>>
>> Like newer OSes included freetype, which Gem will link against unless
>> forced not to.
>
> that should read "OSXes" rather than "OSes", right?
>
> anyhow:
>
>
> i didn't know that freetype was included in OSX since 10.4 (or 10.5,  
> if
> that matters)
>
> if Gem still runs on 10.3, i would like to keep it like that.
>
> the official binaries are linking statically against ftgl/freetype, so
> the deployment issue is not a big deal.
>
> for PdX builds, you could change the osx-min-version.
>
> a command line argument to ./configure to specify an alternative
> "osx-min-version" would be a good idea.


Sorry, I was trying to be funny and I guess I wasn't clear.  There was  
a 10.3 machine in the build farm for a long while.  Then Gem stopped  
building on 10.3, so I dropped the 10.3 machine.  I don't know if  
current versions of Gem build on 10.3, but last I tried Gem definitely  
did not build on 10.3.  And I posted on this list about it back then  
too.

For the last Pd-extended release for 10.3, I actually manually  
included an older Gem build.  So my guess is that Gem still does not  
build on 10.3, and if we are going to use the -mmacosx-version-min  
flag, it should be set appropriately.

As for freetype, its included starting in 10.5 in /usr/X11/lib.  That  
means if you want to build on 10.5 and have it be compatible with  
10.4, you need to include an -isysroot flag to force the build to use  
the 10.4 SDK.

.hc


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment." - New York Senator  
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage  
bill





More information about the GEM-dev mailing list