SDL2 for older MacOS X

[barracuda156]

Done, and, perhaps throwing caution to the wind, did selfupdate.

Looks good so far, will try something really crazy like "sudo port install mpv" soon, and let you know what happens.

You may need these two, though if darwin-xtools work, then just try using them.

cctools: change defaults for 10.4 ppc to match upstream · macos-powerpc/powerpc-ports@ccbf14e

Overlay repo with fixes to use with MacPorts on macOS PowerPC - cctools: change defaults for 10.4 ppc to match upstream · macos-powerpc/powerpc-ports@ccbf14e

github.com

ld64: change defaults for 10.4 ppc to match upstream · macos-powerpc/powerpc-ports@2d8ac46

Tiger is a pain to build anything. Just use what has already been tested and confirmed to work. We do not know atm if darwin-xtools or llvm-powerpc work on 10.4.

github.com

Update. I have uploaded a new ports tarball, so running `port sync` will update ld64 and cctools ports.

 

[barracuda156]

@lauland Once you confirm it actually works on 10.4 (the base I mean), I will pick commit restoring support into the master and update MacPorts port in sysutils accordingly.

 

[lauland]

Installing now...348 packages...

 

[barracuda156]

Installing now...348 packages...

If it gets to building gcc14, consider all is good. (If it starts pulling in llvm stuff automatically, something is not right, and variants logic should be reviewed.)
Compiler itself didn’t change much, so that should work.

What hardware have you got btw? gcc14 takes a lot of time, be prepared.

 

[lauland]

If it gets to building gcc14, consider all is good. (If it starts pulling in llvm stuff automatically, something is not right, and variants logic should be reviewed.)
Compiler itself didn’t change much, so that should work.

What hardware have you got btw? gcc14 takes a lot of time, be prepared.

gcc14 is listed among what it will be building, llvm is not, so good sign maybe...

It is a dual 1.6ghz g4 with 2g of ram, and I well understand how long it will take from building gcc's in the past. So...see you in a day or two?

 

[barracuda156]

gcc14 is listed among what it will be building, llvm is not, so good sign maybe...

It is a dual 1.6ghz g4 with 2g of ram, and I well understand how long it will take from building gcc's in the past. So...see you in a day or two?

Dual 1.6 G4? Is that some Sonnet upgrade?

Yeah, one gcc14 build will probably take ~15+ hrs, there are two needed, and 2 or 3 gcc on the way. But for a desktop no issues.

On dual 2.3 one build took about 12 hrs last time I built gcc14.

 

[lauland]

It's a "newertek maxpower" thingie. I bought the machine used and it came with it. But yes, fully expect to take a day or two or even three...or four? To build everything...

Ah...it just failed building "legacy_support". (Was doing "sudo port install mpv")

Trying again, just THAT package and it seems to be doing things...libmacho...xz-bootstrap...

If it fails again, I'll look at the logs, keep trying things, etc, until I get stuck and will then get you the failure log.

 

[barracuda156]

It's a "newertek maxpower" thingie. I bought the machine used and it came with it. But yes, fully expect to take a day or two or even three...or four? To build everything...

Ah...it just failed building "legacy_support". (Was doing "sudo port install mpv")

Trying again, just THAT package and it seems to be doing things...libmacho...xz-bootstrap...

If it fails again, I'll look at the logs, keep trying things, etc, until I get stuck and will then get you the failure log.

This is surprising if `legacy-support` fails (and rather ironic). I think it is supposed to support 10.4 officially still, and tickets can be opened (make sure to choose legacy-support as a category).
It should not be a big deal to use an older version of it for the time-being, as a temporary solution. Most of needed functionality exists there for years, and latest additions are nothing crucial.

Worth checking if someone decided to dump 10.4-specific code from the portfile. If that is the case, we can restore it.
But it is preferable to deal with upstream on this specific matter, if the port indeed no longer builds.

 

[lauland]

This is surprising if `legacy-support` fails (and rather ironic). I think it is supposed to support 10.4 officially still, and tickets can be opened (make sure to choose legacy-support as a category).
It should not be a big deal to use an older version of it for the time-being, as a temporary solution. Most of needed functionality exists there for years, and latest additions are nothing crucial.

Worth checking if someone decided to dump 10.4-specific code from the portfile. If that is the case, we can restore it.
But it is preferable to deal with upstream on this specific matter, if the port indeed no longer builds.

legacy-support installed fine when I did it separately individually. Trying mpv again.

As I said, if I run into any problems I'll try workarounds until I get stuck.

 

[barracuda156]

While this should not be a requirement, I generally prefer to define a sequence (as long as the aim is not to test for robustness of reproducible builds but just to build the stuff). Say, gcc – cmake – user-end port. So that nothing unnecessary for building toolchain is pulled in due to no dependencies and alphabetic sorting.

 

[lauland]

It seems to be going well so far...it is chewing on gcc7-bootstrap, but has already built tons of smaller things before that.

So far this is what I did:
sudo port install mpv

It errored on legacy-support, so:
sudo port intsall legacy-support

Which went fine, so now again:
sudo port install mpv

 

[barracuda156]

Sounds good.

We should see later if legacy-support build error is deterministic. (While everyone should expect that some ports won’t build, and that is the case in upstream MacPorts as well, and perhaps everywhere, it is desirable to have a reproducible and robust process of getting from Xcode to a minimal, but fully-functional toolchain. So at least a few dependencies for that should build 100% of time.)

 

[lauland]

I have another tiger machine I can try an install on and see if it also has trouble with legacy-support.

Will let you know.

 

[lauland]

Well, after a day or two of building, including multiple gcc's, it failed on m4, of all things. I'll get you the log file after I've determined if I can get past it myself or not.