![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/8d5128b5b838ecedc34635fba7995f7f.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 05:25:46PM +0000, Lyndsy Simon wrote:
We made a good call there. It's hard to say no to an entire platform, but we really couldn't support it reasonably and people that use MacOSX have the worst opinion of Inkscape imaginable. Look at some of the comments about the release.
I also think it was a good call, but not because macOS users "have the worst opinion of Inkscape imaginable". You're seeing a very small segment of that community; most Inkscape users on macOS aren't going to engage in a flamewar because a new version doesn't have a download link for their platform on the day of its release.
If the existing dev team can't support the platform (which seems to be the case), then dropping it was absolutely the right move. If there is enough demand out there to justify packaging it in the future, let the people who want it to happen supply the resources to make it happen.
Precisely. I do have to remain cognizant that "just send a patch" may not have the same resonance with the prototypical Mac user that it might for Linux, and so you're right to use the word 'resources' rather than 'coding'. The Mac userbase may well have abilities and other resources beyond coding that would hugely help Inkscape elsewhere. Figuring ways to enable more diverse ranges of participation would certainly pay off in spades.
But near term, there doesn't seem to be a lot of options easily on hand for this particular task, and we'll just need to hope for a hero or heroine to muscle through it. And actually, based on experience with past porting, it's unlikely to be a one person job, but more of a relay race, with each person documenting their findings and failures to give the next person a head start to carry it forward.
suv says 0.93 with gtk3 will be significantly easier to package for osx, and she's usually right so I remain optimistic.
Bryce