0.82.25 macOS build requires Catalina (but can be built for earlier versions)

[emendelson]

The macOS download version of 0.82.25 won't run under macOS 10.14 Mojave; it posts an error message saying that it requires 10.15 Catalina. The info.plist file lists the required minimum version as 10.8, so the requirement seems to be baked into the unix executable.

However, I can build the source code under 10.14 Mojave and the unix executable runs (with the problem that I'll report in another report).

[msikma]

I'd also appreciate it if builds started being made for Mojave again as well. It's still a viable operating system, and in fact I'd rather not switch to Catalina myself due to it dropping 32-bit support.

If nothing else, maybe a good temporary solution would be to add a note to the download, saying something like:

"This download is only for macOS 10.15 Catalina - future builds will support macOS 10.14 Mojave again, but for now the last working version for that operating system is v0.82.23."

[joncampbell123]

I am only able to compile for Catalina at this time. The older Mac Mini with older versions of Mac OS X has become a development system for co-workers to develop an iOS app at the office.

[joncampbell123]

Despite the Catalina requirement for my binary releases, nothing has changed much and the Mac OS X build scripts should continue to work for earlier systems.

[msikma]

It's been a while since I've done anything in Xcode but isn't it possible to simply set an earlier minimum version of OSX as the build target? I'll have a look at it tomorrow myself.

[jowtron]

Any news on this msikma? Is it possible to build again for lower Macos versions?

[kencu]

Dosbox-x builds and runs on 10.7 to 10.15 when built from MacPorts.

[jowtron]

Thanks Ken, I tried to install using MacPorts but it doesn't seem to make an app anywhere that I can see? I typed sudo port install dosbox-x

[kencu]

the way it is built at present is unix-style, with the bins and supports installed into /opt/local and runnable from the command line as dosbox-x, and also with a launching app at /Applications/MacPorts/Dosbox-x.app.

Packaging is flexible, that's just our MacPorts default way.

[Wengier]

Thanks @kencu for mentioning MacPorts. I have added a reference in the documentation to mention the possibility of building and running DOSBox-X in older macOS versions using MacPorts.

[kencu]

If you have a moment to help me with packaging, is the SDL1 version of dosbox-x ever preferred? Is there a reason why a 32bit version of dosbox-x might be preferred over the 64bit version, given the opportunity to have either?

We have the option to do all these variations, and also I've added most of the optional parts as well (ffmpeg, etc). I just left out OpenGL support on Darwin -- and I might as well ask, is there any reason someone might want that?

[Wengier]

My primary development platform is Windows (and I packaged the Windows installer etc), so I will try to answer your question from the Windows side. On Windows platforms there are DOSBox-X builds for different architectures, including x86-32 (Win32), x86-64, ARM(32) and ARM64. You are simply recommended to select the build for your platform, e.g. select the x86-64 build if you use Windows x86-64 version. As for SDL1 vs SDL2, it is a different issue though. Most features should be the same in both SDL1 and SDL2 versions, but there are some differences, due to the differences between SDL1 and SDL2. The default build is the SDL1 version, but if you have certain problems with it, then you can try the SDL2 version and see if the issue is solved there. Hope this helps.