Re: [Gimp-print-devel] MacOS 10.6

[Steve L. <sle...@ya...>]

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:50 PM, Matt Broughton <wal...@ma...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Feb 3, 2021, at 12:57 PM, Steve Letter via Gimp-print-devel <gim...@li...> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 3, 2021, at 9:36 AM, Matt Broughton <wal...@ma...> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 2, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Solomon Peachy <pi...@sh...> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 06:15:51PM -0500, Robert Krawitz wrote:
>>>>> Other than a couple of Mac mini systems that lived on through August 
>>>>> 2007, these were all short-lived laptops that were discontinued at 
>>>>> various times in 2006, so close to 15 years ago.
>>>> 
>>>> 10.6 was also the final release to support running PPC binaries (via 
>>>> Rosetta) so there might be folks with newer hardware that are legitimately
>>>> stuck on it. 
>>> 
>>> The ones "stuck" on 10.6 may be the enterprise people.  How long did it take for businesses to update from Windows 98.  I'm not so sure about the home user.  You can't do much if anything on the internet.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I like the sound of Matt's proposal of two installer packages, one for 
>>>> 10.6->10.12, and another for 10.13+, but that obviously carries ongoing 
>>>> support burdens for us, especially for platforms that Apple ceased 
>>>> supporting over a decade ago.
>>> 
>>> I suggested that because I think it takes a lot more time and resources to build a one off for 10.6.  Also, if I remember correctly, when Michael Sweet offered to help us, he indicated that he may not be able to support anything lower than 10.13.  With more systems that could use an unsigned installer, it  *might* be justified to offer a package that wasn't signed.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> I would naively expect that there are more people running 10.12 (say) 
>>>>> for whom signed packages are a plus than people still running 
>>>>> specifically 10.6, but maybe I'm wrong.
>>>> 
>>>> I would agree with that, and there are some numbers to back this up:
>>>> 
>>>> https://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide/#monthly-201805-202101
>>>> 
>>>> Those numbers show that 10.13 combined is under 9% and <10.10 is under 
>>>> 2%.  Granted, this is taken via web analytics, so it might be skewed a tad.
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/944559/worldwide-macos-version-market-share/
>>>> 
>>>> This shows 10.6 as having a mere 0.14% of the install base now:
>>>> 
>>>> https://www.statista.com/statistics/944559/worldwide-macos-version-market-share/
>>>> 
>>>> And this data shows as of mid-2016, <10.8 was under 6%.  It's surely fallen since.
>>>> 
>>>> https://update.omnigroup.com/
>>>> 
>>>> But I digress.. if we can support 10.7+ on a single installer, I think 
>>>> it's time to stick a fork in 10.6.
>>> 
>>> The current build Steve put in Snapshots does work with OS X 10.7.5.  I have tested it.
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gimp-print-devel mailing list
>>> Gim...@li...
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gimp-print-devel
>> 
>> One caveat that probably makes building a 10.6 version less important, I’m not sure I have a setup to build PPC fat binaries. I had even forgotten about them until Solomon mentioned it. 
>> 
>> Anyone know off the top of their head when Xcode command line tools stopped supporting PPC builds?  I’ll need to get it. 
> 
> You don't build a PPC binary for 10.6.  It was 10.5 that was the first macos to need Intel.  You could run PPC apps using Rosetta. OS X 10.4 could boot either PPC or Intel.  10.4 was the last OS X to be able to do that.  I have a PPC mac mini and the first generation of the Intel mac mini.  Both machines can use 10.4. After that, you needed to have an Intel machine and you booted into an i386 environment. OS X 10.6 was 32 bit, but it could run Gutenprint in 64 bit mode.  I would need a 64 bit package to make sure.  It was some later version that required you to boot into 64 bit -- 10.8 or 10.9 come to mind.  As this is a one off release for 10.6 only, the easiest and most compatible would be to just build i386 if possible.
> Matt
> 

Thanks Matt. My brain is in the middle of rewriting Diffie Hellman in one of our libraries so it will pass government audit for the foreseeable future.