Ralph Giles (:rillian) Assignee
	Description • 8 years ago

Now that we're no longer supporting Mac 10.6-10.8, bump the default MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_VERSION.

	Ralph Giles (:rillian) Assignee
	Comment 1 • 8 years ago

We no longer support MacOS X versions 10.6-10.8. Bumping the
default MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET to 10.7 lets us start landing
changes which are incompatible with that SDK.

Moving it to 10.9 must wait until our test infrastructure is
reconfigured to run on later vesions.

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/50199/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/50199/

	Ralph Giles (:rillian) Assignee
	Comment 2 • 8 years ago

Here's a push bumping to 10.9. This probably won't work since we build on 10.7, but wanted to confirm.

https://treeherder.mozilla.org/#/jobs?repo=try&revision=9dd86cf0b651

	Gregory Szorc [:gps]
	Comment 3 • 8 years ago

Comment on attachment 8748251 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1269790 - Bump default MacOS target to 10.7. r?gps

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/50199/#review47033

The commit message is slightly incorrect. It is build jobs that are still running on 10.7, not test jobs.

But the diff is fine. Die, 10.6, die.

	Ralph Giles (:rillian) Assignee
	Comment 4 • 8 years ago

Thanks. 10.9 bump failed on try "C compiler cannot create executables."

Cross builds just need a 10.9 sdk packaged in tooltool I believe. Mac-hosted builds probably need an upgrade to a newer macos to get a sufficiently need xcode.

	Pulsebot
	Comment 5 • 8 years ago

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/0d34cec0093a

	Carsten Book [:Tomcat]
	Comment 6 • 8 years ago
bugherder

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/0d34cec0093a

	Benjamin Smedberg
	Comment 7 • 8 years ago

Is there a separate bug on "Moving it to 10.9 must wait until our test infrastructure is
reconfigured to run on later vesions."? That is something we need to do if we really aren't going to support 10.8-10.9

Also, what is the user experience for people who are running 10.6 and try to run Firefox?

	Nils Ohlmeier [:drno]
	Comment 8 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Benjamin Smedberg  [:bsmedberg] from comment #7)
> Also, what is the user experience for people who are running 10.6 and try to
> run Firefox?

I happen to miss the announcement on dev-platform, so I just ran into this by accident. Here is the current, I would say non-ideal, user experience:

- Release and DevEdition both updated them self via the updater to the latest available versions (46 and 48). Everything appears to be working as expected.
- I started Nightly, which happened to be version 40. The 'About Firefox' dialog shows a message saying that this version of Firefox can't be updated any more, because the support for the OS has ended. Plus a link "Learn more". Clicking on that links get you to an article with a title saying OS X support has ended for some versions and the article itself says that there is no approved content yet for this article.
- I manually downloaded 49 and tried to start it: user gets the Apple crash reporter as the binary has no 'strndup' linked to it.

	bhearsum@mozilla.com (:bhearsum)
	Comment 9 • 8 years ago

(In reply to Nils Ohlmeier [:drno] from comment #8)
> (In reply to Benjamin Smedberg  [:bsmedberg] from comment #7)
> > Also, what is the user experience for people who are running 10.6 and try to
> > run Firefox?
> 
> I happen to miss the announcement on dev-platform, so I just ran into this
> by accident. Here is the current, I would say non-ideal, user experience:
>
> - I started Nightly, which happened to be version 40. The 'About Firefox'
> dialog shows a message saying that this version of Firefox can't be updated
> any more, because the support for the OS has ended. Plus a link "Learn
> more". Clicking on that links get you to an article with a title saying OS X
> support has ended for some versions and the article itself says that there
> is no approved content yet for this article.

Not getting the latest supported version is expected on Nightly (and DevEdition) due to the way the update server was set-up in bug 1269811. We'll be doing something better for Beta/Release/ESR, where we have enough users to go to the trouble.