[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gub targets + binary packages
From: |
Jonas Hahnfeld |
Subject: |
Re: gub targets + binary packages |
Date: |
Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:46:48 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.0 |
Am Montag, den 07.10.2019, 19:23 +0000 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
>
> On 10/7/19, 1:10 PM, "Jonas Hahnfeld" <
> address@hidden
> > wrote:
>
> Am Montag, den 07.10.2019, 17:51 +0000 schrieb Carl Sorensen:
> >
> > On 10/7/19, 11:27 AM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Jonas Hahnfeld via
> lilypond-devel" <
> >
> lilypond-devel-bounces+c_sorensen=address@hidden
>
> > on behalf of
> >
> address@hidden
>
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > lately I've been playing with gub, partly to get python3 packaged.
> Upon
> > inspection, it seems some targets are broken and some are ... a bit
> > out-of-date:
> >
> > darwin-ppc: Support for applications targeting PowerPC was removed
> in
> > Darwin 11.0 / Mac OS X 10.7, released in 2011.
> >
> > That doesn't mean there aren’t people using PowerPC macs. I don't
> think there is a reason to eliminate this target.
>
> If my search skills are right, the last model with a PowerPC processor
> was the Power Mac G5, with the latest revision released in late 2005.
> That's almost 14 years ago (on October 19, if Wikipedia is correct).
>
> What do you think would be a reasonable time frame to eliminate support
> for old hardware? From my perspective, it's always a trade-off between
> developer time and supporting users.
>
> In my opinion, we could eliminate PowerPC support if it were broken. Unless
> some PowerPC user wants to step up and do the maintenance, I wouldn't be
> concerned about removing it. One of the theories of GUB is that the
> developer time in minimized for maintaining cross-platform build. But as we
> can see, the theory doesn't always match the practice.
>
> But if it's not broken, I see no reason to remove it. As long as the
> developer time is zero, we should leave it.
Well, then let me give some context: There's motivation to port
LilyPond to Python3. This means that gub needs updated spec files,
making the effort non-zero.
Based on a short try, it's not immediately possible to cross-compile
Python 3 for macOS. I'm not saying it's infeasible, but I'm trying to
find out if it's a must to get it working on all current targets. I
totally agree that GUB is a great idea, but does it warrant delaying
modernization for other targets?
>
> > darwin-x86: Support for 32-bit applications was removed in today's
> > macOS 10.15.
> > (darwin-64 is not currently supported in gub.)
> >
> > darwin-64 is not likely to be supportable in gub. We've had some long
> discussions on the -devel list; Apple has not released any 64-bit headers
> that are GPL compatible. So providing darwin-x86 is probably the best we can
> do for supporting macOS users via the GUB distributions. Again, no reason to
> eliminate -x86 just because the latest version of OS X doesn't support it.
> Many people (including me) have refused to update to 10.15 precisely because
> it breaks existing software that works well for me.
> >
> >
> > The most important target is probably Windows / mingw, which is also
> > 32-bit but works on current 64-bit systems.
> >
> > We also would like to get a 64-bit windows system going; 32-bit
> applications sometimes crash on large scores. As far as I know, it is only a
> question of developer time to get a 64-bit windows build going.
>
> That matches my understanding.
Well, you wrote it ;-P
Jonas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/07
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/07
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Carl Sorensen, 2019/10/07
- Re: gub targets + binary packages,
Jonas Hahnfeld <=
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Carl Sorensen, 2019/10/07
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/18
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Phil Holmes, 2019/10/18
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/18
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Federico Bruni, 2019/10/18
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, John Mandereau, 2019/10/19
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Karlin High, 2019/10/21
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/21
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Karlin High, 2019/10/21
- Re: gub targets + binary packages, Jonas Hahnfeld, 2019/10/22