Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

R-base 4.1: Patch ATSFont calls to CGFont calls, update gcc11 to gcc12 #1113

Closed
wants to merge 7 commits into from

Conversation

sth0
Copy link
Contributor

@sth0 sth0 commented Jan 4, 2024

R-base4.1 does not compile on MacOS 13. This OS release removed the deprecated ATSFont calls for the newer CGFont calls. This replaces the calls with the corresponding new API. Also updated the link to gcc12-shlibs from gcc11-shlibs.

@dhomeier
Copy link
Contributor

dhomeier commented Jan 4, 2024

Built successfully on Sonoma 14.2.1 / Xcode 15.1 without the update to gcc12, which currently does not build on Sonoma (not sure about Ventura with Xcode 15).
It does build with gcc13, but that in turn may not be available on older systems any time soon – see #1080 (comment) .
I have previously tested a basically identical patch on Big Sur and High Sierra with gcc11, the patch seems to be OK back to 10.13 at least. So I'd recommend to stick with gcc 11.4 for the moment.

@nieder
Copy link
Member

nieder commented Jan 4, 2024

R packages that use gccXX hardcode the version that R-base was built against. Which is why you see lines like this:

(%type_raw[rversion] << 3.6) gcc5-shlibs | (%type_raw[rversion] = 3.6) gcc9-shlibs | (%type_raw[rversion] >= 4.0) gcc11-shlibs,

If we update r-base41 to gcc12, then we have update all relevant cran-XXX-r41 packages to use gcc12 (apart from gccXX availability issues across macOS versions).

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 4, 2024

Will regress to gcc11-shlibs

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 5, 2024

I have been using the PR #1080 #1080 which seems to allow building of gcc11 / 12 / 13 on all the systems I have tried.

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 6, 2024

pushed commits to regress to gcc11 compiler and bumped revision number.

@dmacks
Copy link
Member

dmacks commented Jan 16, 2024

This patch looks like upstream's https://bugs.r-project.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18426 (in which case it's obviously a Good Solution:) so we should cite it as such in the .info (might be cleaner to have that attachment literally as a PatchFile2 instead of merged into the main PatchFile).

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 22, 2024

I had trouble applying it as a separate patch and thus combined it. I can try to separate them out as separate patches if the consensus is that is "cleaner".

@dmacks
Copy link
Member

dmacks commented Jan 22, 2024

Doesn't really matter whether it is a seperate .patch or not, whatever is easier. But if that's the origin of the patch, definitely need to document that fact in the .info.

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 22, 2024

Will update the implementation description.

@sth0
Copy link
Contributor Author

sth0 commented Jan 23, 2024

Added comment to BuildDesc tag and removed references to PCRE1 which is not used for R version 4.1

@sth0 sth0 closed this Jun 30, 2024
@sth0 sth0 deleted the sth-r-base branch June 30, 2024 22:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants