> On 30 Jan 2018, at 18:42, Chris Barker <Chris.Barker at noaa.gov> wrote: > > Ned, > > It looks like you're still building OS-X the same way as in the past: > > Intel 32+64 bit, 10.6 compatibility > > Is that right? > > Might it be time for an update? > > Do we still need to support 32 bit? From: > > https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/99640/how-old-are-macs-that-cannot-run-64-bit-applications <https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/99640/how-old-are-macs-that-cannot-run-64-bit-applications> > > There has not been a 32 bit-only Mac sold since 2006, and a out-of the box 32 bit OS since 2006 or 2007 > > I can't find out what the older OS version Apple supports, but I know my IT dept has been making me upgrade, so I"m going to guess 10.8 or newer… A binary with a newer deployment target than 10.6 would be nice because AFAIK the installers are still build on a system running that old version of OSX. This results in binaries that cannot access newer system APIs like openat (and hence don’t support the “dir_fd” parameter in a number of function in the os module. > > And maybe we could even get rid of the "Framework" builds…… Why? IMHO Framework builds are a nice way to get isolated side-by-side installations. Furthermore a number of Apple APIs (including the GUI libraries) don’t work unless you’re running from an application bundle, which the framework builds arranges for and normal unix builds don’t. Ronald -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180204/572437df/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4