Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from October 2015
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Jarkko Hietaniemi via RT <perlbug-followup@perl.org> wrote: >> I happen to be on OS X 10.10 but have installed XCode 7.0.1, which has >> a base SDK of 10.11. If I use 10.11 as the deployment target on my >> 10.10 system, I would not be making binaries I could even run on my >> current system would I? To me the base SDK looks more like the >> maximum features you can include and is not really suitable for >> selecting the minimum system you want to target. > > But this is a problem created by Apple, is it not? They released a SDK > that works at k+1, while also being able to be installed and run at k? > I think we also should be safe to assume that within such a small > window the binaries will be also (really) backward-compatible. I don't know, but I suspect it would require someone building extensions to have the same SDK. > On the selection of the target level we have at least two options: > (a) Jens' patch which used the installed SDK to divine a safe (max) level > (b) hardcode something to the hints (e.g. 10.4 if we want to be > superconservative, that would still include PPC, or 10.4 if we are > in a PPC; and then 10.7 for *x86*) > > The upside of (a) is that it will automagically be future-proof. > > The upside of (b) is that it is predictable and stable. > > The downside of (a) is ... mmm, maybe if Apple at some point > really breaks the bincompat between k and k+1, introducing a SDK > that really shouldn't be used at k? Too crazy? > > The downside of (b) is that at some point in future the 10.7 > will eventually become too dusty, and needs updating. I'm fine with doing something simple that gets us away from the hard-coded 10.3. A variant of (a) would be to do what Apple does and target the system we are building on rather than the currently-selected SDK version: <http://www.opensource.apple.com/source/perl/perl-103.40.1/5.18/fix/darwin.sh.ed> Of course they are building a Perl to distribute *with* that system, so maybe that's not appropriate for us.Thread Previous | Thread Next