dosbox update?

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Oct 4, 2018, at 10:26, Ken Cunningham wrote:

> On 2018-10-04, at 8:19 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> 
>> Josh brought up some reasonable objections:
>> 
>> https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/2018-October/039443.html
>> 
> 
> I was thinking about Josh's concerns.
> 
> Seems to me that if dosbox is an end-of-the-chain piece of software, that supplies no libraries that other software might use, then there is very little risk. I'm thinking no risk, actually.
> 
> Most of these things we want to build 32bit (wine, basiliskii, etc, etc) do not supply any libraries for other ports to use.
> 
> So building them against the 10.13 SDK (perhaps even setting the deployment_target to 10.13 if we want) should make them behave very much as though (exactly as though?)  they were built on a 10.13 machine and moved up to Mojave, which is a supported Apple pathway.
> 
> What do you think?

We're not only talking about wine, dosbox, etc., but also all of their recursive dependencies which would need to be built universal with the 10.13 SDK as well. Those dependencies certainly do install libraries and it's the impact that using an older SDK and possibly an older deployment target for those dependencies would have on other ports not doing so that is uncertain.