> On Sep 19, 2018, at 11:49, Julien Salort <lis...@salort.eu> wrote: > > Le 19/09/2018 à 17:12, Ken Cunningham a écrit : > >> I haven't dived into Mojave yet, but if all the system libraries in >> /usr/lib and all the Frameworks are x86_64 only, then I don't see how that >> could work, even if you compiled against an SDK (like the 10.13 SDK) that >> still has i386 support. > I don't have Mojave and will only install it once Macports fully supports it. > But, if I understand correctly, it is still possible to *run* 32-bits > software. Therefore, I suppose there have to be 32-bits system librairies in > /usr/lib, as well as 32-bits Frameworks. > > Cocoa software is probably less of an issue than Carbon software which never > supported 64-bits AFAIK... >
From what I've seen running "file" on files in /System/Library/Frameworks, /Library/Frameworks, and /usr/lib on the most recent Mojave public beta, most of the frameworks in /System/Library/Frameworks and most of the .dylib in /usr/lib are dual architecture. Frameworks in /Library (less essential or 3rd party) are mostly x86_64 only. So I think that the 10.13 SDK on Mojave, assuming one can still build against it there, may well be a short-term answer. But IMO, this is still a good excuse to at least get STARTED on pushing everything toward x86_64, even if workarounds are still mostly possible; because in the next OS version, i386 will likely be gone or severely crippled. I'd think that's true to the point that everything that can be x86_64 only (and is not a dependency of something that can't yet be) should be. Note: I haven't actually tried to build anything on Mojave, didn't really want to suck up the disk space on a sparse VM (Parallels) image for Xcode etc.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
