[MacPorts] #45551: iTerm2 builds fine on OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, Portfile prevents

[MacPorts]

#45551: iTerm2 builds fine on OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, Portfile prevents
--------------------------------+--------------------
  Reporter:  chilli.namesake@…  |      Owner:  emer@…
      Type:  enhancement        |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Low                |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports              |    Version:
Resolution:                     |   Keywords:
      Port:  iTerm2             |
--------------------------------+--------------------

Comment (by chilli.namesake@…):

 >> According to r111826, it needs the ​CTFontDrawGlyphs function, which
 was introduced in Lion. Has iTerm2 removed this requirement since?

 Now I remember, thanks... that was the reason given. idk what
 CTFontDrawGlyphs function is or does, but I haven't noticed anything
 strange. Literally, all I did was edit the iTerm2 Portfile to change
 "10.7" requirement to "10.6," and the source build completes, and the
 binary seems to run fine. I'm using the 64-bit kernel, regular Apple 10.6
 system software on regular Apple Intel hardware.

 I imagine, if running 10.6, and you altered the system to report it was
 10.7, then this would also allow the downloadable binary to run. That
 might work on 10.5, too... but its a sketchy thing to do to alter what the
 system reports is the version, but its not as though it hurts anything.

 >> This looks like compiling on 10.5 is possible

 I'm not sure of the nitty gritty differences in xcode/macports between
 10.5/6/7/8... but... the spirit and intention of source code is that it is
 portable, ports to build on many systems. That's the beauty of it. I'm not
 sure when restrictive policies became a part of OSS, but I don't like it
 :( . If something doesn't work, why the extra effort to prevent it? Why
 not just let it fail when it fails, and not preempt the failure with a
 synthetic failure "this is going to fail, so we stopped you!" ?

 MHO (and I'm not a dev... unless bash counts... I'm adminish)

 Also, I'm not clear on where responsibility lies... if its macports or the
 iTerm2 devs' decision that counts with the request. I was assuming that a
 change in how macports handles iTerm2 would make me (and the 10.6
 userbase) happy, but perhaps its a stickier issue.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/45551#comment:3>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X