On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Michael Tüxen wrote:
> OK. I'll get an additional system which can act as a 64-bit Snow Leopard builder.
> This way we have a 32-bit Leopard builder and a 64-bit SnowLeopard
> one.
So what builds would we offer OS X users as downloads?
A 64-bit-only Snow Leopard build wouldn't work on Intel Core Duo or Intel Core Solo machines that have been updated to Snow Leopard (no Core Duo or Core Solo machines *shipped* with Snow Leopard), so anybody running Snow Leopard on one of those machines would presumably have to install the 32-bit Leopard build.
It probably also wouldn't work on a Leopard machine, for a variety of reasons (requiring newer versions of system libraries than are on Leopard, 64-bit BPF possibly being broken even worse than on Snow Leopard).
Safari's User-Agent string doesn't appear to include any 32-bit vs. 64-bit indication; however, it does include an OS version indication:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10_6_3; en-us) AppleWebKit/531.22.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Safari/531.22.7
so we could
offer nothing to Mac OS X 10_[0-4]*;
offer the (32-bit) PPC Leopard version to {whatever} Mac OS X 10_5*;
offer the 32-bit Intel Leopard version to Intel Mac OS X 10_5*;
offer the 64-bit Intel Snow Leopard version to Intel Mac OS X 10_[6-9]*, perhaps with a warning that if you have a non-64-bit-capable machine you should get the Leopard version instead.
We could also limit the 10_5* and 10_6* versions to releases >= the version running on the relevant buildbot (as earlier versions run into shared library version problems).
