Re: [Flightgear-devel] OSX 10.5 compilation

[James T. <zak...@ma...>]

On 15 Feb 2013, at 23:56, ys <fli...@sa...> wrote:

> Ok, can we have a decision that SimGear/FlightGear is not supporting OSX 10.5 on intel anymore ? FG 2.8 is doable, and maybe 2.10 with some further tweaks too, but after looking to what's coming up with "next" I see that more and more tweaks are needed and that core developers do not take 10.5 into account anymore (what I can understand very well, but it's not mentioned anywhere, when I'm not wrong).
> 
> Fact is that all dependencies still supports osx 10.5 on intel, but sg/fg doesn't anymore (since 2.8 this is also posted at flightgear.org for mac release, >= 10.6).  As stated by James sg/fg code is not tested against 10.5 by core developers anymore, so please ... I my view a small message should come to changelog which can be referenced by "supporters" at forums and elsewhere for this fact. Or do you think this is completely wrong ?
> 

Hmm, I'm not sure what to say - I'm not aware of any 'upcoming' stuff in next that makes 10.5 support harder. There's changes, e.g. the file-dialog stuff, if it does't work with 10.5 (and I've no idea if does or not), can simply be #ifdef-ed based on the system version. That's the *only* think I can think of in next which would affect system support.

And I maintain, that 10.5 support is pretty doable with the 2.10 codebase, or 'next', if someone wishes to invest some time. So making an 'official statement' seems a bit silly - just like it would be odd to make a statement saying we don't support FreeBSD or Cygwin or Windows 2k. I imagine some of those platforms need a similar amount of tweaking to Mac 10.5, to work out of the box, since no one tried them in years, but if someone cares to make them work, they will work - and I'm happy to apply patches to support them, so long as they don't break existing stuff.

(Actually I think FreeBSD does work, precisely because someone did that work, for 2.8)

So we can make such a statement, and if someone asks, the reason for making the statement, is because you asked for such a statement! - but I don't really see who that benefits? It will still be possible to #ifdef some code and support 10.5, if there's a person interested / motivated enough to make it happen.

Regards,
James