eric b <eric.bachard <at> free.fr> writes:
>
> Hi Steven,
>
> Le 3 oct. 07 à 20:23, Steven G. Johnson a écrit :
>
> > Dear OOo Mac developers,
> >
>
> > Is it just a matter of futzing a bit with the
build procedure,
> > header files, commenting out a bit here and there,
etc?
>
> (from memory) if I'm not wrong, dlopen() was still
needed in 10.2,
> not in 10.3. They are other locales issues and other
goodies in sal,
> graphical issues in vcl ( we use Quartz ) ... etc ..
this is not clear
>
> > Would you accept patches for backwards
compatibility?
>
> Sure we will !! Be welcome on Mac OS X porting project
>
> > Or are 10.4-only features deeply woven into the
codebase?
>
> See above ...
>
> Regards,
> Eric Bachard
>
Hi,
I've watched the progress on the native port for a while and
think it is very
exciting, but was disappointed by the decision not to
produce an aqua/cocoa
version for 10.3. So I just wanted to express my moral
support for the idea of
trying to make it backward compatible.
The problem is not the result of the porting team approach
but more Apples. I am
a little shocked that a computer as bought a couple of years
ago is increasingly
unable to run new software. Apple seems to expect that users
will spend money
every couple of years on the os, which even microsoft has
never seemed to demand
of its users.
I suspect that a lot of potential openoffice users will,
like myself, explore
the option of switching to linux instead of paying Apple so
as to take advantage
of your port, which I think is a real pity.
the issue isn't just about having the latest. While the x11
version runs well on
my intel 10.4 laptop it is slow and frustrating on my g5
(10.3) imac at home, to
the extent that we don't use it. The hope was that an aqua
version would solve
these problems.
cheers,
sirrahn
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: mac-unsubscribe porting.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: mac-helpporting.openoffice.org
|
