Discussion:
How Mojave-ready is MacPorts?
(too old to reply)
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-10 20:37:07 UTC
Permalink
I ask because assuming I give High Sierra a miss (which failed twice on my
early 2009 13" MacBook for different reasons) and try Mojave instead, are
the binaries more or less ready to go? Mass compilations will render this
thing unusable (we're talking typing echoes measured in *seconds*), and
it's the main client on my LAN.

Thanks.

-- Dave
Christopher Jones
2018-11-10 20:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

MacPorts was 'more or less’ ready for Mojave from when it was first released.

If what you are asking is are binaries available for the ports I care about, only you can check that as no one else knows what you intend to install.

Go to

http://packages.macports.org <http://packages.macports.org/>

and check to see if the ports you care about most have binary tarballs available. Most probably do by now, but there are likely still some the builedbot is working through.

Chris
I ask because assuming I give High Sierra a miss (which failed twice on my early 2009 13" MacBook for different reasons) and try Mojave instead, are the binaries more or less ready to go? Mass compilations will render this thing unusable (we're talking typing echoes measured in *seconds*), and it's the main client on my LAN.
Thanks.
-- Dave
Ken Cunningham
2018-11-10 20:49:37 UTC
Permalink
I ask because assuming I give High Sierra a miss (which failed twice on my early 2009 13" MacBook for different reasons)
-- Dave
It likely won’t run Mojave anyway. My 2010 MacBookPro won’t.

(Needs a very powerful graphics card to run Metal.)

Ken
Chris Jones
2018-11-10 20:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
Post by Ken Cunningham
I ask because assuming I give High Sierra a miss (which failed twice on my early 2009 13" MacBook for different reasons)
-- Dave
It likely won’t run Mojave anyway. My 2010 MacBookPro won’t.
Good point. Yes, that is most probably too old. My 2011 mac mini server also missed the cut.
Post by Ken Cunningham
(Needs a very powerful graphics card to run Metal.)
Funnily enough my mini, which cannot install it natively, can run 10.14 just fine in a VM... so graphics cannot be the full story I think.

Chris
Post by Ken Cunningham
Ken
Ken Cunningham
2018-11-10 21:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Jones
which cannot install it natively, can run 10.14 just fine in a VM... so graphics cannot be the full story I think.
Oh that is weird. I have to try that :>

K
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-10 21:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Boy, those were fast replies :-)

OK, I've been talked out of trying Mojave on this thing (it's unlikely to
work) so I'll start saving my pennies for a MacBook Air or something.

Thanks, all.

Jeeze; this must be update season or something... FreeBSD 10 is now EOL
(that's my server) and the hardware is really old, and I'm still running
Debian 8 when Debian 9 has been out for a while (I install updates ASAP,
but tend to hold off on major upgrades).

-- Dave
Bill Cole
2018-11-11 03:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Horsfall
OK, I've been talked out of trying Mojave on this thing (it's unlikely
to work)
Indeed. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP777?locale=en_US says it
definitely won't.
--
Bill Cole
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-11 20:36:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Horsfall
OK, I've been talked out of trying Mojave on this thing (it's unlikely
to work)
Indeed. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP777?locale=en_US says it definitely
won't.
So I see; well, it's served me well for nine years... I only upgrade
hardware when forced to, so I guess it's time to put some of my pension
aside for a MacBook Air or something.

-- Dave
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-12 19:06:30 UTC
Permalink
OK, I've been talked out of trying Mojave on this thing (it's unlikely to work)
Indeed. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP777?locale=en_US says it definitely won't.
So I see; well, it's served me well for nine years... I only upgrade hardware when forced to, so I guess it's time to put some of my pension aside for a MacBook Air or something.
There are usually ways of shoehorning newer operating systems into unsupported older systems, at the expense of some performance problems or other issues.
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-12 20:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Schmidt
Post by Dave Horsfall
So I see; well, it's served me well for nine years... I only upgrade
hardware when forced to, so I guess it's time to put some of my pension
aside for a MacBook Air or something.
There are usually ways of shoehorning newer operating systems into
unsupported older systems, at the expense of some performance problems
or other issues.
Sure, but after trying to upgrade to High Sierra twice (failing with
different errors each time; the first was something about incompatibility,
and the second was a critical file missing), I don't really feel like
going through it all over again with Mojave. Besides, the hardware is
slowly dying on me; the audio chip is dead (I'm using either USB or BT as
takes my fancy), the optical drive is damaged, the (replacement) battery's
lifetime can be measured in minutes, and the system drive is external USB,
so portable it ain't.

For the record, I've been running this thing ever since Snow Leopard,
faithfully updating all the time.

I'm happy to wait for better hardware and continue to run Sierra in the
meantime. As it is, I'm also holding off on upgrading my FreeBSD-10
server to FreeBSD-11 until I get a somewhat newer box (the current one is
well over 10 years old, and some of its electrolytic capacitors are
starting to bulge which is a sign of imminent failure), and am also
looking at upgradinf my Debian box from 8 to 9.

Thanks for the suggestion anyway.

-- Dave
Mojca Miklavec
2018-11-12 21:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Horsfall
Post by Ryan Schmidt
Post by Dave Horsfall
So I see; well, it's served me well for nine years... I only upgrade
hardware when forced to, so I guess it's time to put some of my pension
aside for a MacBook Air or something.
There are usually ways of shoehorning newer operating systems into
unsupported older systems, at the expense of some performance problems
or other issues.
Sure, but after trying to upgrade to High Sierra twice (failing with
different errors each time; the first was something about incompatibility,
and the second was a critical file missing), I don't really feel like
going through it all over again with Mojave.
Since you are talking about the optical drive and 10.6: is your
hardware even officially supported? The last OS officially working
with my MacBook pro from 2009 (hardly different from those from 2012,
the last ones being sold with optical drives) was 10.11. The fun thing
is that once I finally decided to upgrade it, I could no longer even
download 10.11. Yes, I could probably upgrade to 10.12 in one way or
another, but I would then likely get into troubles with security
patches, and I could run into performance issues, at which point I
would probably be better off with hackintosh :)
Post by Dave Horsfall
Besides, the hardware is
slowly dying on me; the audio chip is dead (I'm using either USB or BT as
takes my fancy), the optical drive is damaged, the (replacement) battery's
lifetime can be measured in minutes, and the system drive is external USB,
so portable it ain't.
I replaced the SATA cable only three or four times, I bet it could be
the same problem at your end (I've never heard of sata cables failing
on other laptops). But probably not worth fixing if you plan to stop
using it soon anyway.
Post by Dave Horsfall
For the record, I've been running this thing ever since Snow Leopard,
faithfully updating all the time.
Mojca
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-12 21:40:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mojca Miklavec
Since you are talking about the optical drive and 10.6: is your
I take it you mean 10.12.6 (Sierra)? The OS works fine, but Mojave is
officially not supported on this model (and I couldn't install High
Sierra).
Post by Mojca Miklavec
hardware even officially supported? The last OS officially working with
my MacBook pro from 2009 (hardly different from those from 2012, the
last ones being sold with optical drives) was 10.11. The fun thing is
that once I finally decided to upgrade it, I could no longer even
download 10.11. Yes, I could probably upgrade to 10.12 in one way or
another, but I would then likely get into troubles with security
patches, and I could run into performance issues, at which point I would
probably be better off with hackintosh :)
The model here (after much digging around) is "MC207xx/A, 13" screen,
serno 45008Q7Exxx, late 2009, firmware 6,1 (note the comma)" with 4GB
memory (dealer-installed). I'm told that it can go to 8GB to cut down on
the paging, but it's not a supported configuration (otherwise it would
compete with the MacBook Pro), and I don't feel like futzing around with
the firmware to make it pretend that it's a Pro.
Post by Mojca Miklavec
I replaced the SATA cable only three or four times, I bet it could be
the same problem at your end (I've never heard of sata cables failing on
other laptops). But probably not worth fixing if you plan to stop using
it soon anyway.
The motherboard connector for the SATA cable is broken, hence the external
USB 2.0 drive (and hence is as slow as a wet weekend when active). I was
staying in a hotel at the time, and I suspect a housemaid dropped it (but
no-one would admit to it, of course).

-- Dave
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-13 00:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mojca Miklavec
Since you are talking about the optical drive and 10.6: is your
I take it you mean 10.12.6 (Sierra)? The OS works fine, but Mojave is officially not supported on this model (and I couldn't install High Sierra).
I think you said before you weren't interested, but if you change your mind, or if anyone else is interested, if you Google "unsupported Mojave" you can find a method of installing Mojave on your MacBook6,1. Read the FAQ at the bottom of the page to learn what compromises that might entail.
Post by Mojca Miklavec
hardware even officially supported? The last OS officially working with my MacBook pro from 2009 (hardly different from those from 2012, the last ones being sold with optical drives) was 10.11. The fun thing is that once I finally decided to upgrade it, I could no longer even download 10.11. Yes, I could probably upgrade to 10.12 in one way or another, but I would then likely get into troubles with security patches, and I could run into performance issues, at which point I would probably be better off with hackintosh :)
The model here (after much digging around) is "MC207xx/A, 13" screen, serno 45008Q7Exxx, late 2009, firmware 6,1 (note the comma)" with 4GB memory (dealer-installed). I'm told that it can go to 8GB to cut down on the paging, but it's not a supported configuration (otherwise it would compete with the MacBook Pro), and I don't feel like futzing around with the firmware to make it pretend that it's a Pro.
According to EveryMac.com, MacBook6,1 supports 8GB of RAM. No futzing would be required. Apple only supports RAM configurations that were available at the time the model was sold. If 4GB modules were not available in 2009, then they would not claim to support a total of 8GB of RAM. But according to EveryMac your Mac does work with that amount of RAM.
Dave Horsfall
2018-11-13 22:56:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I think you said before you weren't interested, but if you change your
mind, or if anyone else is interested, if you Google "unsupported
Mojave" you can find a method of installing Mojave on your MacBook6,1.
Read the FAQ at the bottom of the page to learn what compromises that
might entail.
I'll take a look, but I suspect it will be akin to shaving my head with a
cheese grater :-) Thanks anyway.
Post by Ryan Schmidt
According to EveryMac.com, MacBook6,1 supports 8GB of RAM. No futzing
would be required. Apple only supports RAM configurations that were
available at the time the model was sold. If 4GB modules were not
available in 2009, then they would not claim to support a total of 8GB
of RAM. But according to EveryMac your Mac does work with that amount of
RAM.
Not sure where I saw that reference (some Mac site - MacFixit or
something?) but they were pretty definitive about it.

Anyway, this thing is sick in so many ways that it probably isn't worth
upgrading; I was offered $100 for it (spare parts) at a Mac shop as a
trade-in.

-- Dave
Chris Jones
2018-11-14 09:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dave Horsfall
Post by Ryan Schmidt
According to EveryMac.com, MacBook6,1 supports 8GB of RAM. No futzing
would be required. Apple only supports RAM configurations that were
available at the time the model was sold. If 4GB modules were not
available in 2009, then they would not claim to support a total of 8GB
of RAM. But according to EveryMac your Mac does work with that amount
of RAM.
Not sure where I saw that reference (some Mac site - MacFixit or
something?) but they were pretty definitive about it.
Until it finally expired, my late 2008 Macbook Pro ran 8GB just fine,
even though Apple only 'supported' 4GB. I suspect your would run 8GB as
well.

Chris
Bill Cole
2018-11-14 14:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris Jones
Post by Dave Horsfall
Post by Ryan Schmidt
According to EveryMac.com, MacBook6,1 supports 8GB of RAM. No
futzing would be required. Apple only supports RAM configurations
that were available at the time the model was sold. If 4GB modules
were not available in 2009, then they would not claim to support a
total of 8GB of RAM. But according to EveryMac your Mac does work
with that amount of RAM.
Not sure where I saw that reference (some Mac site - MacFixit or
something?) but they were pretty definitive about it.
Until it finally expired, my late 2008 Macbook Pro ran 8GB just fine,
even though Apple only 'supported' 4GB. I suspect your would run 8GB
as well.
Related data point: I have a late 2008 13" aluminum MacBook
(MacBook5,1/model A1278) which Apple documents as supporting 4GB but
which I upgraded to 8GB 6+ years ago. I only retired it to appliancey
duty last month, after my darling wife did me the favor of spilling
water on it (making the keyboard not quite work) and providing the sign
that a new laptop was in order. I had been pondering doing whatever hack
was possible to get High Sierra onto it, however I would never try to
push Mojave onto that machine or any other Mac which is disqualified by
dint of not supporting the Metal graphics layer. Even if it basically
works, there would almost certainly be circumstances where it just
breaks. With luck that would only cause visual artifacts but with
something that low-level it's not inconceivable that there would be hard
incompatibilities that could crash apps or even panic the kernel.
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-13 00:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mojca Miklavec
The fun thing
is that once I finally decided to upgrade it, I could no longer even
download 10.11.
There are knowledge base articles from which you can download older macOS versions. Here's the one for 10.11:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206886
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-10 21:27:51 UTC
Permalink
are the binaries more or less ready to go?
I have not yet finished telling the buildbot to build all ports on Mojave. I'm doing them in small batches, which I believe is more efficient and allows builds for recent commits to be processed sooner than if I had scheduled a built of all 10,000+ portfiles at once. I've done all categories except the two largest ones, perl and python. I'm about halfway through python. Any perl or python modules that are dependencies of other (non-perl or -python) ports will already have been built, as will any ports that have been updated since the Mojave builder was set up a week after Mojave was released, so at this point we're just down to perl and some python modules that are not used by other ports and have not been updated in the past month.

There have been many build failures along the way, as was not entirely unexpected. I've filed many tickets about those failures that I happened to see in the buildbot waterfall. Some of those have been resolved, others not. Other issues still need to have tickets filed. I'll probably need to write a script to pull all the failures out of the buildbot logs, since we don't have anything set up to do that yet. If there are ports you want to use, check whether any issues are filed against them in Trac before upgrading the OS.

A common problem is build failures with any ports that use xcodebuild. There is a ticket about us needing to modify the xcode portgroup to add a flag for the derived data location. There may also be issues other than that, requiring individual ports to disable the use of the "new" build system which Xcode 10 uses by default, until the developers have time to figure out how to make their software work with the new build system.

And we still have the situation that 32-bit software cannot be built on Mojave at this time. I have not really looked into possible ways of addressing this, as I've been focused on running all ports through the build system and trying to deal with the resulting failures.
db
2018-11-12 21:25:50 UTC
Permalink
Message: 11
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2018 15:27:51 -0600
Subject: Re: How Mojave-ready is MacPorts?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
[…]
I'll probably need to write a script to pull all the failures out of the buildbot logs, since we don't have anything set up to do that yet. If there are ports you want to use, check whether any issues are filed against them in Trac before upgrading the OS.
[…]
Whatever you write, could you add it to macports-contrib? I thought myself to pull all failures to know beforehand if and what should/could be upgraded from time to time, but it remains in my todo. It's a missing feature of MacPorts, at least for those that build from source. Is this information available throught the JSON API [1]?

[1] https://build.macports.org/json/help
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-12 21:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by db
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I'll probably need to write a script to pull all the failures out of the buildbot logs, since we don't have anything set up to do that yet. If there are ports you want to use, check whether any issues are filed against them in Trac before upgrading the OS.
Whatever you write, could you add it to macports-contrib? I thought myself to pull all failures to know beforehand if and what should/could be upgraded from time to time, but it remains in my todo. It's a missing feature of MacPorts, at least for those that build from source. Is this information available throught the JSON API [1]?
[1] https://build.macports.org/json/help
What we really want is a web site where this information can more easily be seen. I'm not writing that web site now, but if I get around to the scripts and they give me the information we want, moving that into web space might be the next task on the list.

This was a GSoC project that didn't get done.

https://trac.macports.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#build-stats

I don't really want the public making massive numbers of http requests to the buildmaster (which is what the script would do) because I fear it might be slow and clog up the bandwidth. I can run the scripts on the same network as the buildmaster and so not use up its bandwidth.
Mojca Miklavec
2018-11-12 21:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Schmidt
Post by db
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I'll probably need to write a script to pull all the failures out of the buildbot logs, since we don't have anything set up to do that yet. If there are ports you want to use, check whether any issues are filed against them in Trac before upgrading the OS.
Whatever you write, could you add it to macports-contrib? I thought myself to pull all failures to know beforehand if and what should/could be upgraded from time to time, but it remains in my todo. It's a missing feature of MacPorts, at least for those that build from source. Is this information available throught the JSON API [1]?
[1] https://build.macports.org/json/help
What we really want is a web site where this information can more easily be seen. I'm not writing that web site now, but if I get around to the scripts and they give me the information we want, moving that into web space might be the next task on the list.
This was a GSoC project that didn't get done.
https://trac.macports.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#build-stats
Maybe better links with two documents:
https://github.com/macports/macports-webapp/tree/master/docs
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I don't really want the public making massive numbers of http requests to the buildmaster (which is what the script would do) because I fear it might be slow and clog up the bandwidth. I can run the scripts on the same network as the buildmaster and so not use up its bandwidth.
This is a no-go and it would takes forever anyway, even if there was
just a single person trying to do that (I know, I have a script :).

Mojca
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-12 22:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mojca Miklavec
Post by Ryan Schmidt
Post by db
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I'll probably need to write a script to pull all the failures out of the buildbot logs, since we don't have anything set up to do that yet. If there are ports you want to use, check whether any issues are filed against them in Trac before upgrading the OS.
Whatever you write, could you add it to macports-contrib? I thought myself to pull all failures to know beforehand if and what should/could be upgraded from time to time, but it remains in my todo. It's a missing feature of MacPorts, at least for those that build from source. Is this information available throught the JSON API [1]?
[1] https://build.macports.org/json/help
What we really want is a web site where this information can more easily be seen. I'm not writing that web site now, but if I get around to the scripts and they give me the information we want, moving that into web space might be the next task on the list.
This was a GSoC project that didn't get done.
https://trac.macports.org/wiki/SummerOfCode#build-stats
https://github.com/macports/macports-webapp/tree/master/docs
Post by Ryan Schmidt
I don't really want the public making massive numbers of http requests to the buildmaster (which is what the script would do) because I fear it might be slow and clog up the bandwidth. I can run the scripts on the same network as the buildmaster and so not use up its bandwidth.
This is a no-go and it would takes forever anyway, even if there was
just a single person trying to do that (I know, I have a script :).
Can you send it to me? Do you have a better idea?
db
2018-11-12 22:52:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Schmidt
What we really want is a web site where this information can more easily be seen.
I don't really want the public making massive numbers of http requests to the buildmaster (which is what the script would do)
I just want that every build reports its failure somewhere I can query a list of failed builds from — that should certainly not be a large one, neither number nor size. So from your answer I'll assume that I cannot get that info from the JSON API.
Ryan Schmidt
2018-11-12 23:58:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by db
Post by Ryan Schmidt
What we really want is a web site where this information can more easily be seen.
I don't really want the public making massive numbers of http requests to the buildmaster (which is what the script would do)
I just want that every build reports its failure somewhere I can query a list of failed builds from — that should certainly not be a large one, neither number nor size. So from your answer I'll assume that I cannot get that info from the JSON API.
I have not explored the buildbot JSON API yet. Buildbot is certainly not designed for what we're using it for: It has no idea that different builds on a builder are for different ports, so it would have no way of giving you, for example, a list of builds for a particular port. The web interface gives you the option to see only "failing builders" but that only means a builder whose last build failed; it does not mean show every build on this builder that failed. I don't know if maybe the API provides this feature while the web interface does not.
James Linder
2018-11-14 02:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ryan Schmidt
OK, I've been talked out of trying Mojave on this thing (it's unlikely to work)
Indeed. https://support.apple.com/kb/SP777?locale=en_US says it definitely won't.
So I see; well, it's served me well for nine years... I only upgrade hardware when forced to, so I guess it's time to put some of my pension aside for a MacBook Air or something.
There are usually ways of shoehorning newer operating systems into unsupported older systems, at the expense of some performance problems or other issues.
I’m technical and dont use my machine for all the wizz bang social media stuff so I find that mojave offers me very little and infact the screen blanker kicks in intermittently while watching mythtv and my wakeup from sleep is 10 secs ! instead of un-noticably short (a sec or two) that it was on high sierra. So a cute experiment but I’ll go back to high sierra.
(https://support.apple.com/en-au/HT208969)

James
Loading...