GIMP native Quartz

Riccardo Mottola riccardo.mottola at
Sun Dec 17 16:45:47 UTC 2017

Hi Ryan,

> No we don't have a 10.5 i386 builder, and as I said there's 
> practically no 
> reason why anyone should use such a system, since all Intel Macs that 
> support 
> 10.5 can and should upgrade to 10.6.

Well.. I quite like 10.5. The story is that I had a MacBook previously 
running 10.6.8, it got stolen together with the DVD, etc.
I just recently bought again used such machine (a bit for nostalgia, a 
bit for the TenFourFox port idea), it came with 10.4 installed, but I 
was not able to reinstall it because I couldn't find a working ISO on 
the net (perhaps they are tampered or they are for different Macs).
I was able to install 10.5 and it runs very well, better than 10.6 
did: it is quicker and faster, also compared to 10.4.
Maybe on early 64bit machines 10.6 is the best choice, but on this one 
(Core, not Core 2) 10.5 seems nice. It also looks better and is also 
faster than 10.4 on Intel.
On PPC, I both have a 10.4 (PowerBook) and 10.5 (PowerMac) and 10.5 is 
quite slow.

Maybe it is only a question of memory, apparently my MacBook can't 
take more than 2GB.

> We do, on the other hand, have a 10.5 ppc builder, because that is 
> the last 
> version of Mac OS X that works on PowerPC computers.

Then 10.5 intel differences should be mostly something platform 

> I fixed it on 10.5 Intel. It works fine now.

Yes, I confirm cmake built fine, actually it also worked and all GIMP 
dependencies compiled up to GIMP itself. I wanted to report on the 
bug, but do it here now since i was closed.
Great work! This makes my MacBook much more useful! [1]

Question: GIMP works quite fine, but compared to the official build I 
got on the website (which is for 10.6 and up though), in our version 
all controls look like GTK on X11, while in the other one they look 
more mac-like, some look being even native.
Is this a difference of OS? GTK? build setting? a GTK theme?

> I believe I previously stated that if a port installs another 
> compiler via 
> MacPorts, then it is because we found that that port is not 
> compatible with 
> whatever compiler would otherwise have been chosen. So there must be 
> some 
> port that you've installed that is not compatible with Apple gcc 
> 4.2.1 build 
> 5577 (which came with your Xcode), and instead requires the slightly 
> newer 
> Apple gcc 4.2.1 build 5666 dot 3 (which is in MacPorts).
> So the simple answer to your question "why" is "because it is needed".

Ok Fine! Apple should have given me an update then :-P


[1] do you accept donations?

More information about the macports-users mailing list