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 issues if things are built for the most recent supported version (i.e. 10.4).
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer science is no more related to the computer than astronomy is related to the telescope. -Edsger Dykstra
-----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. if the latter, it doesn't matter.
issues if things are built for the most recent supported version (i.e. 10.4).
which "issues"?
fgmasdr IOhannes
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. 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.
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.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The arc of history bends towards justice. - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
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.
fg,asdr IOhannes
how about doing a poll on osx users. I have a double boot with fedora10 and osx10.6, but can't build gem in osx yet...
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 12:32 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at 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.
fg,asdr IOhannes
GEM-dev mailing list GEM-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/gem-dev
Jaime Oliver wrote:
how about doing a poll on osx users. I have a double boot with
hmm, we could do a poll. but what if 2 users say they are using 10.6, 6 say they are 10.5 and 4 use 10.4. what is the relevance of the poll then (hey, what's the relevance of Gem then :-))?
fedora10 and osx10.6, but can't build gem in osx yet...
i know you cannot build it. but can you use it? (prebuild)
and afair, setting the osx-min-version to 10.5 or so hasn't really made it compile on 10.6 either.
if we can make it compile for 10.6 and that would mean that it won't build on/for 10.3 no more, then i guess that we should do this.
as long as it doesn't buld on 10.6 and we only know that it won't work on 10.3, this does not sound very compelling to me.
bvst IOhannes
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
if we can make it compile for 10.6 and that would mean that it won't build on/for 10.3 no more, then i guess that we should do this.
as long as it doesn't buld on 10.6 and we only know that it won't work on 10.3, this does not sound very compelling to me.
so now we do know that it compiles on 10.6 if the mmacosx-version-min is at least set to 10.4, this changes things a bit for me.
does it work out-of-the-box if we leave out the -mmacosx-version-min alltogether?
if not, i guess we should still omit this flag, and instead use the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable.
this way there is no need to do any quirks on the configure side.
fgmasdr IOhannes
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:31 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
if we can make it compile for 10.6 and that would mean that it won't build on/for 10.3 no more, then i guess that we should do this.
as long as it doesn't buld on 10.6 and we only know that it won't work on 10.3, this does not sound very compelling to me.
so now we do know that it compiles on 10.6 if the mmacosx-version- min is at least set to 10.4, this changes things a bit for me.
does it work out-of-the-box if we leave out the -mmacosx-version-min alltogether?
if not, i guess we should still omit this flag, and instead use the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable.
this way there is no need to do any quirks on the configure side.
The MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable has been superceeded by the mmacosx-version-min flag. So either use -mmacosx-version-min or nothing, IMHO.
.hc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. - Martin Luther King, Jr.
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Dec 16, 2009, at 4:31 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
if we can make it compile for 10.6 and that would mean that it won't build on/for 10.3 no more, then i guess that we should do this.
as long as it doesn't buld on 10.6 and we only know that it won't work on 10.3, this does not sound very compelling to me.
so now we do know that it compiles on 10.6 if the mmacosx-version-min is at least set to 10.4, this changes things a bit for me.
does it work out-of-the-box if we leave out the -mmacosx-version-min alltogether?
if not, i guess we should still omit this flag, and instead use the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable.
this way there is no need to do any quirks on the configure side.
The MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable has been superceeded by the mmacosx-version-min flag. So either use -mmacosx-version-min or nothing, IMHO.
i have found "rumours" about that, but nothing definite. the manpage for a g++ on 10.5 (4.0.1) says:
<snip> -mmacosx-version-min=version The earliest version of MacOS X that this executable will run on is version. Typical values of version include 10.1, 10.2, and 10.3.9. This value can also be set with the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET environment variable. If both the command-line option is specified and the environment variable is set, the command-line option will take precedence. </snip>
there is no mention of deprecation. googling around gives me some hits, where people ask whether it is deprecated or not, and some people then shouting "NO". this is not really the kind of information based on which i want to make decisions.
searching the apple website i only find: http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/DeveloperTools/Conceptu... which tells me to use the environment variables if i use Makefiles and want the same effect as setting the deplyoment OS version in XCode.
the good thing about MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET is that it doesn't interfere with compilers that don't support it. so you could just set it, on each and every platform and don't care about it any more. (unlike compiler switches, which a chosen compailer might accept or not at all)
fgmadsr IOhannes
well, I might have mislead us.
I just tried to compile gem with -mmacosx-version-min=10.3 in os x 10.6 and it seems to compile fine. I also tried pix_video-help.pd and it seems to work ok. should I be testing any other help patches in particular?
attached is the config.log for that build,
best, J
On 12/16/09, IOhannes m zmoelnig zmoelnig@iem.at wrote:
IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
if we can make it compile for 10.6 and that would mean that it won't build on/for 10.3 no more, then i guess that we should do this.
as long as it doesn't buld on 10.6 and we only know that it won't work on 10.3, this does not sound very compelling to me.
so now we do know that it compiles on 10.6 if the mmacosx-version-min is at least set to 10.4, this changes things a bit for me.
does it work out-of-the-box if we leave out the -mmacosx-version-min alltogether?
if not, i guess we should still omit this flag, and instead use the MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET envvariable.
this way there is no need to do any quirks on the configure side.
fgmasdr IOhannes
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
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
Sorry, I was trying to be funny and I guess I wasn't clear. There was a
blush.
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.
right the archive show something in 2006-11. re-reading the archives, i see that it is not very clear on the final result: it might as well have worked after my fixes back then.
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.
again: mmacosx-version-min is about the target platform, not the compile platform. i guess one can use a recent compiler and recent features of this compiler and still run on a target machine that would not be able to compile the entire shebang. so the question is not whether it builds on 10.3 but whether it runs on 10.3
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.
darn. but this means that the macosx-version-min doesn't help us here either.
fmgasd IOhannes
-
Hans-Christoph Steiner -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
IOhannes m zmölnig
-
Jaime Oliver