Ken, you got some degree of superficial acquaintance with the system in
question 2,5 years ago and keep convincing yourself and others that your,
obviously emotionally biased, take represents an accurate account of
reality, and that reality could not possibly have changed ever since.
As a matter of fact, it is 10.6 on Intel that is completely hacked in
MacPorts, and uses C++ runtime which Apple never had on 10.6. *There is no
such a thing as libc++ on 10.6*. If you insist on ritualistic preservation
of whatever Apple did at the date of release of the OS, perhaps start by
removing *your* hacks from MacPorts which force an alien runtime and
clang-11.
Years pass, and you still cannot demonstrate all those hundreds of
10a190-specific hacks in MacPorts tree, because they do not exist. They do
not exist in my fork either in that numbers or anything remotely close to
that.
Yes, libstdc++ is used on powerpc, which, ironically, makes 10.6.8 on
powerpc closer to the original than on x86. Though libc++ works fine, once
someone’s (I won’t bother even checking whose) spaghetty hacks for clangs
are fixed or dropped.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:53 AM Ken Cunningham <
ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well -- of course 10.6-PPC needs lots and lots and lots and lots of
> special workarounds.
>
> 10.6-PPC is basically 10.5 PPC wearing lipstick and a wig.
>
> It is very very different from 10.6 / Intel / libc++. It builds with gcc,
> not clang. It links against libstdc++, nott libc++. It does not have the
> 10.6 kernel features or framework / library supports. It is much more like
> an early version of 10.5, which is why you need special workarounds all
> over the damn place for it to make it behave like 10.5 even though it
> reports itself as 10.6
>
> Which is why -- so far -- there are hundreds of workarounds for 10.6-PPC
> in the Portfiles that go like this:
>
> if (10.6) but ! build.arch==ppc) {
> do some normal thing
> }
>
> Just complete and total garbage.
>
> And God only knows what crap commits have been forced on unsuspecting
> upstreams for this nonsense. I shudder to think.
>
> K
>
>
