<div><div dir="auto">I haven’t dug into the code, but that’s a good idea. My worry would be things that XCode gives that are hard to build ourselves like AppKit w/ Swift 4.1. </div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It’s already 10.12 because it will not build in XCode 8 at all. If they use @available or whatever that could be the problem too. Which is a shame since 10.10 is still pretty modern. It’s getting old, but it’s only n-3</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">A big worry I have is if the project moves to XCode 10, it will only build on 10.14 very soon even if it will run all the way back to 10.10</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">—Mark</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 5:32 PM Christopher Jones <<a href="mailto:jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk">jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br></div>Looking at<div><br></div><div><a href="https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/aqua/iTerm2/Portfile" target="_blank">https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/aqua/iTerm2/Portfile</a></div><div><br></div><div>The port is already limited to 10.12 or newer…</div><div><br></div><div>I do still wonder if that couldn’t be extended by using the compiler black list port group accordingly...</div></div><div style="word-wrap:break-word;line-break:after-white-space"><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 28 Jul 2018, at 10:05 pm, Mark Anderson <<a href="mailto:emer@emer.net" target="_blank">emer@emer.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="m_5145469244384085045Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div dir="ltr">Turns out I'm wrong, it will run 10.10+, but will only build from source on 10.13 due to a Xcode 9.4 requirement.<div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_5145469244384085045gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">—Mark<br>_______________________<br>Mark E. Anderson <<a href="mailto:emer@emer.net" target="_blank">emer@emer.net</a>><br></div></div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, Jul 28, 2018 at 4:53 PM Chris Jones <<a href="mailto:jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk" target="_blank">jonesc@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div></div><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>10.13 only would be quite a harsh requirement, so I think limiting iTerm2 to only that would not be good. </div><div><br></div><div>Do you know why exactly they are doing this ? Is it the Metal 2 requirement, or Xcode or something else ? Sometimes within MacPorts we can support OSes beyond what upstream expects, as we have things like fallback compilers etc., whilst upstream assumes you would only use Xcode supplied ones. So it really depends on what the limitation actually is.</div><div><br></div><div>Chris </div><div><br>On 28 Jul 2018, at 9:10 pm, Mark Anderson <<a href="mailto:emer@emer.net" target="_blank">emer@emer.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>The upcoming 3.2 version of iTerm2 will require 10.13 or higher to build. The upside is Metal 2 rendering is being working on. I'm wondering if we want to keep older versions based on older macOSes or just say, hey, upstream only supports 10.XX at the latest and so that's what we support.</div><br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_5145469244384085045m_8315240540030637202gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">—Mark<br>_______________________<br>Mark E. Anderson <<a href="mailto:emer@emer.net" target="_blank">emer@emer.net</a>><br></div></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Sent from Gmail Mobile on iPhone</div>