Netatalk can be a shim to pick this or that version, and then having several
versions in parallel does not create a confusion.
On Jan 22, 2025 at 11:35 +0800, bl...@netjibbing.com, wrote:
> OK thanks for that info. With Netatalk, it shows as building and running back
> to Snow leopard i386 now. What if I make a netatalk4 port and give that some
> time to bake before making changes to the netatalk port to select the newer
> version based on OS? Install count looks super low however. I 100% don’t want
> to break any older setups that already are working.
>
> For now I’ll focus on the meson build issues and getting that all sorted.
>
> > On Jan 21, 2025, at 6:11 PM, Jason Liu <jason...@umich.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Take a look at the Portfile for MoltenVK:
> >
> > https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/graphics/MoltenVK/Portfile
> >
> > The base MoltenVK port, which is just a stub, will select the correct
> > versioned subport based on the user's macOS version. Unfortunately, there
> > is no way to know how to divide up the if-else statements unless you know
> > which macOS versions can handle which version of netatalk. The only way to
> > find out this information is to either gather it from the historical
> > changelogs of the upstream package, or to actually test using old macOS
> > versions (this is really the only truly accurate method). The second method
> > is often considered to be a compelling reason why those of us MacPorts devs
> > who are interested in supporting older macOS versions will sometimes set up
> > virtual machines for each and every older macOS version.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Liu
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 22, 2025 at 9:12 AM Blake Garner <bl...@netjibbing.com> wrote:
> > > I like that idea. Is there a good example port that already does this? My
> > > plan is to get a functional PR started and hope for some collaborative
> > > advice.
> > >
> > > I’m not very interested in spending a lot of effort testing every
> > > possible version of macOS. Can these supports have their own supported
> > > macOS versions?
> > >
> > > Can older OS versions select the netatalk2 support?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jan 20, 2025, at 6:37 PM, Sergey Fedorov <vital....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, this is a better idea, perhaps.
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 10:13 AM Jason Liu <jason...@umich.edu> wrote:
> > > > > > Whoever updates the Portfile, can you make sure to preserve the old
> > > > > > version(s) of netatalk using a versioned subport, i.e. 'netatalk3',
> > > > > > 'netatalk2' (or whatever), so that old versions of macOS can still
> > > > > > use the older netatalk packages? I think that the 'netatalk' port
> > > > > > should be whatever is the latest version of the package, instead of
> > > > > > having a new port called 'netatalk4'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Jason Liu
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 4:28 AM Sergey Fedorov
> > > > > > > <vital....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I had a port for netatalk 3 somewhere; as I recall, it needed
> > > > > > > > some fixes for the build. That was a while ago, I do not know
> > > > > > > > what is the current status.
> > > > > > > > Very much likely that netatalk 4 will be broken on older
> > > > > > > > systems and possibly less useful than earlier versions.
> > > > > > > > So yeah, I think it should be a separate port rather than an
> > > > > > > > upgrade of existing one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 3:23 AM <bl...@netjibbing.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > The Netatalk package has seen some serious updates recently
> > > > > > > > > > with a new team working on it. I have made a couple efforts
> > > > > > > > > > and getting a working port for the 4.x versions but meson
> > > > > > > > > > build system is tripping me up. Also looking at
> > > > > > > > > > compatbility it seems like we would want a netatalk4
> > > > > > > > > > package vs just updating the netatalk package. That said
> > > > > > > > > > there is a support statment to consider.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > "18th of January 2025
> > > > > > > > > > The Netatalk Project has published its End of Life policy.
> > > > > > > > > > We guarantee that each release series will be supported
> > > > > > > > > > with security patches for 12 months after the release of
> > > > > > > > > > the superseding feature release.
> > > > > > > > > > Most urgently, this means that the long-running 3.1 release
> > > > > > > > > > series will be out of support after May 31st, 2025. Users
> > > > > > > > > > and downstream packagers are encouraged to upgrade to the
> > > > > > > > > > latest Netatalk 4.1 release series."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > My “works on my machine” WIP for the port
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/trodemaster/macports-ports/blob/add-netatalk4/net/netatalk4/Portfile
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The meson build system only has one flag for the path to
> > > > > > > > > > bdb for example. With include and lib needing to be
> > > > > > > > > > specified for MacPorts compatibility, it seems like I would
> > > > > > > > > > need to hack up the meson config to get the current version
> > > > > > > > > > to build. For no I’m pointin to some local filesystem as a
> > > > > > > > > > hack to make it build.
> > > > > > > > > > /Users/blake/scratch/netatalk/bdb/
> > > > > > > > > > ├── db48 -> /opt/local/lib/db48/
> > > > > > > > > > ├── include -> /opt/local/include/db48/
> > > > > > > > > > └── lib -> /opt/local/lib/db48/
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There are also a bunch of other binaries that are part of
> > > > > > > > > > hte package and having those built as variants seems like a
> > > > > > > > > > good plan. See features setion https://netatalk.io
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Suggestions for ports using meson that are good reference?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Homebrew reference
> > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/Homebrew/homebrew-core/blob/67dd3977058cd517d3d5394afd400ad00e708f38/Formula/n/netatalk.rb
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > > Blake
> > > > > > > > > >
>
