www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Mac OS X 10.5 support

reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that system 
is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available for dev/test.

Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for me, 
anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively painless, 
the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've experienced.

Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially say
that 
only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community that eschews OS 
upgrades but still expects new apps?
Feb 08 2012
next sibling parent reply Brad Anderson <eco gnuk.net> writes:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com>wrote:


 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


There appears to be fewer 10.5 users than 10.4, oddly:
http://update.omnigroup.com/

Regards,
Brad Anderson
Feb 08 2012
parent Don Clugston <dac nospam.com> writes:
On 09/02/12 05:46, Brad Anderson wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 8:52 PM, Walter Bright
 <newshound2 digitalmars.com <mailto:newshound2 digitalmars.com>> wrote:

     Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting
     that system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems
     available for dev/test.

     Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

     I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is
     (for me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and
     relatively painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS
     that I've experienced.

     Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we
     officially say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant
     10.5 community that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


 There appears to be fewer 10.5 users than 10.4, oddly:
 http://update.omnigroup.com/


Note that 10.5 and 10.4 support PowerPC as well as x86. They have 4% 
PowerPC, down from about 7% at the start of 2011.
That accounts for about 25% of the combined decline of 10.4 and 10.5, 
and it's clearly caused by old machines being replaced.
They must date from 2006 or earlier. Surely a large fraction of the 
remaining 10.4 & 10.5 systems are likewise near end of life.

So it looks like:
48% 10.7
34% 10.6
15% 10.5 + 10.4
  4% PowerPC, never supported by DMD.
Feb 09 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message 
news:jgvfu2$gmk$1 digitalmars.com...

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that 
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available 
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for 
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively 
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've 
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially 
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community 
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


While I'm normally big on not dropping support for older things, my honest 
take on it is that if someone's using an Apple OS, then they've already 
agreed to an implicit "contract" (for lack of a better word) that they're 
going to need to keep upgrading to whatever's the latest hardware/software 
anyway. It's just the way Apple works. 'Course, as a non-Apple user, I'm not 
sure anything I have to say on it counts for much. So, FWIW.
Feb 08 2012
parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
At this point, the only people on 10.4-5 should be those with PPC macs. I th=
ink 32-bit Intel owners may be stuck on 10.6.

On Feb 8, 2012, at 9:13 PM, "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote:


 "Walter Bright" <newshound2 digitalmars.com> wrote in message=20
 news:jgvfu2$gmk$1 digitalmars.com...

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that=20=





 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available=20=





 for dev/test.
=20
 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.
=20
 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for=20=





 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively=20=





 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've=20
 experienced.
=20
 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially=20=





 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community=20=





 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


=20
 While I'm normally big on not dropping support for older things, my honest=


=20

 take on it is that if someone's using an Apple OS, then they've already=20=



 agreed to an implicit "contract" (for lack of a better word) that they're=20=



 going to need to keep upgrading to whatever's the latest hardware/software=


=20

 anyway. It's just the way Apple works. 'Course, as a non-Apple user, I'm n=


ot=20

 sure anything I have to say on it counts for much. So, FWIW.
=20
=20
Feb 09 2012
parent reply Don <nospam nospam.com> writes:
On 09.02.2012 17:07, Sean Kelly wrote:

 At this point, the only people on 10.4-5 should be those with PPC macs. I
think 32-bit Intel owners may be stuck on 10.6.


The link that Brad posted shows there are Intel users on 10.4 and 10.5. 
The number of 10.4, 10.5 users is about four times higher than the 
number of PPC macs.
Is 10.6 still available? I would imagine that anybody who didn't upgrade 
early on, probably never will now.



 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jgvfu2$gmk$1 digitalmars.com...

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?
Feb 11 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-11 09:18, Don wrote:

 On 09.02.2012 17:07, Sean Kelly wrote:

 At this point, the only people on 10.4-5 should be those with PPC
 macs. I think 32-bit Intel owners may be stuck on 10.6.


 The link that Brad posted shows there are Intel users on 10.4 and 10.5.
 The number of 10.4, 10.5 users is about four times higher than the
 number of PPC macs.
 Is 10.6 still available? I would imagine that anybody who didn't upgrade
 early on, probably never will now.


I'm still at 10.6 and I will upgrade to 10.7, I'm just lazy.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 11 2012
prev sibling parent Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
That's a good question. Not being able to get upgrade pricing because the in=
termediate versions aren't available would be a problem, though I believe pa=
ying the upgrade vs. non-upgrade price may use the honor system anyway. You'=
re right though, if someone hasn't upgraded yet then they. Ever will.=20

On Feb 11, 2012, at 12:18 AM, Don <nospam nospam.com> wrote:


 On 09.02.2012 17:07, Sean Kelly wrote:

 At this point, the only people on 10.4-5 should be those with PPC macs. I=




 think 32-bit Intel owners may be stuck on 10.6.

=20
 The link that Brad posted shows there are Intel users on 10.4 and 10.5. Th=


e number of 10.4, 10.5 users is about four times higher than the number of P=
PC macs.

 Is 10.6 still available? I would imagine that anybody who didn't upgrade e=


arly on, probably never will now.

=20
=20

 "Walter Bright"<newshound2 digitalmars.com>  wrote in message
 news:jgvfu2$gmk$1 digitalmars.com...

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that=









 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems availabl=








e

 for dev/test.
=20
 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.
=20
 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for=









 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relativel=








y

 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.
=20
 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially=









 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community=









 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?






=20
Feb 11 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-09 04:52, Walter Bright wrote:

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.


That's too bad. But the same must apply to 10.6 as well, since the 
build/test farm runs Mac OS X 10.7. I mean it can cause problems as well 
since we don't have a build farm that runs 10.6.


 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?



-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 09 2012
next sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/9/2012 12:55 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 That's too bad. But the same must apply to 10.6 as well, since the build/test
 farm runs Mac OS X 10.7. I mean it can cause problems as well since we don't
 have a build farm that runs 10.6.


Yes, except that no problems have arisen (so far!) with 10.6.
Feb 09 2012
prev sibling parent Brad Roberts <braddr puremagic.com> writes:
On 2/9/2012 12:55 AM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:

 
 That's too bad. But the same must apply to 10.6 as well, since the build/test
farm runs Mac OS X 10.7. I mean it can
 cause problems as well since we don't have a build farm that runs 10.6.
 


If anyone wants to give me a shell account on an osx 10.6 box (or 10.5 too for
that matter), I'll be happy to setup and
maintain the auto-tester on it.  Feel free to shoot me an email.

Later,
Brad
Feb 09 2012
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> writes:
Am 09.02.2012 04:52, schrieb Walter Bright:

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the 
company for which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their 
products so removing that support would make for a very bad situation here.

But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it inside 
a VM.. I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds 
for my own D stuff.

If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related 
so that e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?
Feb 09 2012
next sibling parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-09 10:37, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 Am 09.02.2012 04:52, schrieb Walter Bright:

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the
 company for which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their
 products so removing that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it inside
 a VM.. I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds
 for my own D stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related
 so that e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?


Yes, issue 4854 is a blocker:

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4854

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 09 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/9/2012 1:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the company for
 which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so removing
 that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it inside a VM..
 I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds for my own D
 stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related so that
 e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?



Would it also be possible for you to:

1. debug what has gone wrong with the 10.5 support? I'll be happy to fold in
any 
resulting patches.

2. provide a remote login shell so we can figure it out?

3. use git bisect to determine which change broke it?
Feb 09 2012
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> writes:
Am 09.02.2012 17:20, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 2/9/2012 1:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the
 company for
 which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so
 removing
 that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it
 inside a VM..
 I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds for
 my own D
 stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related
 so that
 e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?



 Would it also be possible for you to:

 1. debug what has gone wrong with the 10.5 support? I'll be happy to
 fold in any resulting patches.

 2. provide a remote login shell so we can figure it out?

 3. use git bisect to determine which change broke it?


I will try and see if a regular retail version of 10.5 can somehow be 
run in a VM, I will possibly get one tomorrow. Otherwise I'll try to get 
a 10.5 test machine on monday and see what I can do.
Feb 09 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-09 21:12, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 Am 09.02.2012 17:20, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 2/9/2012 1:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the
 company for
 which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so
 removing
 that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it
 inside a VM..
 I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds for
 my own D
 stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related
 so that
 e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?



 Would it also be possible for you to:

 1. debug what has gone wrong with the 10.5 support? I'll be happy to
 fold in any resulting patches.

 2. provide a remote login shell so we can figure it out?

 3. use git bisect to determine which change broke it?


 I will try and see if a regular retail version of 10.5 can somehow be
 run in a VM, I will possibly get one tomorrow. Otherwise I'll try to get
 a 10.5 test machine on monday and see what I can do.


It's quite easy to run Mac OS X on a PC, natively or virtually. Just 
google around.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 10 2012
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= writes:
Am 09.02.2012 17:20, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 2/9/2012 1:37 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the
 company for
 which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so
 removing
 that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it
 inside a VM..
 I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds for
 my own D
 stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related
 so that
 e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?


 
 
 Would it also be possible for you to:
 
 1. debug what has gone wrong with the 10.5 support? I'll be happy to
 fold in any resulting patches.
 
 2. provide a remote login shell so we can figure it out?
 
 3. use git bisect to determine which change broke it?


I was able to test on a Mac Mini with 10.5 today (setting up a virtual
machine did not work without downloading disk images over torrent or
similar stuff and v4.1.1 of vmware fusion does not allow non-server
installations anymore). My findings were:

- stock DMD did not run because it is compiled for 64-bit while the
system is 32-bit only
- compiling on a 10.6 machine with stock DMD caused a fatal dyld error
at application startup on the 10.5 machine (for a simple hello world app)
- compiling a fresh DMD on the 10.5 machine from git seems to yield
working executables

So either the problem is just a build setup issue or it was something I
didn't test (I tested writefln() as in bug 4854). Is there a standard
way to build the DMD+druntime+phobos package so I can simulate the
original build process? Right now I just compiled each of those
separately using "make posix.mk" without any further options.

Minor note: the version check in dmd/source/posix.mk to select the OS X
SDK does not work on 10.5 and it selects the 10.6 SDK.
Feb 13 2012
parent reply Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/13/2012 11:50 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 So either the problem is just a build setup issue or it was something I
 didn't test (I tested writefln() as in bug 4854). Is there a standard
 way to build the DMD+druntime+phobos package so I can simulate the
 original build process? Right now I just compiled each of those
 separately using "make posix.mk" without any further options.


make posix.mak is the way.


 Minor note: the version check in dmd/source/posix.mk to select the OS X
 SDK does not work on 10.5 and it selects the 10.6 SDK.


Please post a patch for that, and I'll merge it in.
Feb 13 2012
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=F6nke_Ludwig?= <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> writes:
Am 13.02.12 21:29, schrieb Walter Bright:

 On 2/13/2012 11:50 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 So either the problem is just a build setup issue or it was something I
 didn't test (I tested writefln() as in bug 4854). Is there a standard
 way to build the DMD+druntime+phobos package so I can simulate the
 original build process? Right now I just compiled each of those
 separately using "make posix.mk" without any further options.


 make posix.mak is the way.


 Minor note: the version check in dmd/source/posix.mk to select the OS X
 SDK does not work on 10.5 and it selects the 10.6 SDK.


 Please post a patch for that, and I'll merge it in.


Attached the patch (the pattern uses % instead of * and the 10.5/10.6 
arguments are reversed on line 40).

There is an easy way to install the 10.5 SDK on a 10.7 machine:
http://lunokhod.org/?p=269

Maybe that would be a viable solution to keep 10.5 support - of course 
assuming that it's really just the SDK.
Feb 14 2012
next sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2012-02-14 10:41:43 +0000, Sönke Ludwig 
<ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de> said:


 Attached the patch (the pattern uses % instead of * and the 10.5/10.6
 arguments are reversed on line 40).
 
 There is an easy way to install the 10.5 SDK on a 10.7 machine:
 http://lunokhod.org/?p=269
 
 Maybe that would be a viable solution to keep 10.5 support - of course
 assuming that it's really just the SDK.


You don't actually need the 10.5 SDK to create a 10.5-compatible 
binary, unless you're compiling for PowerPC. All you have to do is use 
the "-mmacosx-version-min=10.5" argument when invoking GCC and make 
sure you're not using any API not present on 10.5 (and if you're using 
one it'll be weak-linked and you have to check at runtime if it exists 
before using it). You can still use the 10.6 or 10.7 SDK, or not 
specify any SDK letting the compiler use the system-installed headers 
and libraries. I'm doing it with my apps, and it works great.

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound2 digitalmars.com> writes:
On 2/14/2012 2:41 AM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

 Please post a patch for that, and I'll merge it in.


 Attached the patch


Folded in.
Feb 14 2012
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
You need 10.5 server. Apple doesn't allow desktop versions of OSX in a VM (I=
 think 10.7 may be the first exception to this rule) and VM makers honor thi=
s. I may be able to sort out earlier OSX server versions somewhere for my ow=
n use, but I don't have the resources to make them accessible to others.  I'=
ll see about trying this today.=20

On Feb 9, 2012, at 1:37 AM, S=C3=B6nke Ludwig <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck=
.de> wrote:


 Am 09.02.2012 04:52, schrieb Walter Bright:

 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.
=20
 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.
=20
 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.
=20
 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?


=20
 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the company=


 for which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so rem=
oving that support would make for a very bad situation here.

=20
 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it inside a=


 VM.. I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds for m=
y own D stuff.

=20
 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related so t=


hat e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?
Feb 09 2012
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2012-02-09 17:21, Sean Kelly wrote:

 You need 10.5 server. Apple doesn't allow desktop versions of OSX in a VM (I
think 10.7 may be the first exception to this rule) and VM makers honor this. I
may be able to sort out earlier OSX server versions somewhere for my own use,
but I don't have the resources to make them accessible to others.  I'll see
about trying this today.


VMware made a mistake with VMware Fusion 4.1 that allows to virtualize 
Leopard and Snow Leopard.

http://www.macworld.com/article/163755/2011/11/vmware_fusion_update_lets_users_virtualize_leopard_snow_leopard.html

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg
Feb 09 2012
prev sibling parent Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:
On 9 February 2012 09:37, S=F6nke Ludwig <ludwig informatik.uni-luebeck.de>=
 wrote:

 Am 09.02.2012 04:52, schrieb Walter Bright:


 Lately, dmd seems to have broken support for OS X 10.5. Supporting that
 system is problematic for us, since we don't have 10.5 systems available
 for dev/test.

 Currently, the build/test farm is OS X 10.7.

 I don't think this is like the Windows issue. Upgrading Windows is (for
 me, anyway) a full day job. Upgrading OS X is inexpensive and relatively
 painless, the least painless of any system newer than DOS that I've
 experienced.

 Hence, is it worthwhile to continue support for 10.5? Can we officially
 say that only 10.6+ is supported? Is there a significant 10.5 community
 that eschews OS upgrades but still expects new apps?



 I have a project that we actually plan to use in production in the compan=


y

 for which I work. They still require 10.5 support for their products so
 removing that support would make for a very bad situation here.

 But it should be possible to get a 10.5 retail DVD and install it inside =


a

 VM.. I actually planned to do exactly this to support 10.5 nightbuilds fo=


r

 my own D stuff.

 If support should be dropped anyway, are the issues only build-related so
 that e.g. gdc would still continue work on 10.5 without further work?


Maybe... someone needs to test it though (apple-gcc won't work anymore
as that has been dropped, but gcc should still be available through
macports, or so I'm told).

--=20
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) =3D (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 10 2012