On 20 Sep, Peter Kovacs wrote: > > Am 20.09.20 um 20:16 schrieb Dave Fisher: >>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs: >>>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, >>>> and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick >>>> to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or >>>>development more difficuilt. yes, that's why I wrote: >>> >>> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) >>>possible ... As long as a compiler exists on that platform that >>>compiles the older language standard we should not upgrade. >> >> I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to >> do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a >> minimum platform. >> >> My original suggestion is that: >> >> (1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums. > IMHO we should retire 4.1.X as soon as we have stabilized 4.2.X >> (2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider >> more recent OSs as minimums? Is there anything currently on that >> branch that is a concern? >> >> (3) Should we consider more recent OS minimums for trunk which may >> become 4.5 or 5.0? > > I think we should adjust 4.2.0 but keep trunk the same for now. After > release we will have some more fixes to do. > >> >> What should drive the choice for a more recent minimums? Unavoidable >> incompatibilities. > > 1) I think we have to work between OSes our user use and the > Requirements our dependencies have. > > 2) We have difficulties to update some dependencies since they made a > change to c++11 or later standard. In a serious way it would mean we > would have to maintain those dependencies or we find a way to backport > some C++ features. (i do not have a list.)
The only requirement for C++11 that I've run into is with very recent versions of vigra. That's not a depenency that we've ever tried to upgrade. I only discovered the issue because of the FreeBSD port, which was using the system vigra package. When vigra was updated on FreeBSD, the port stopped building in C++98 mode, so I switched the port to the bundled vigra. The biggest problem I've run into is the lack of C99 support by the old version of Visual C++ that we use on Windows. Recent versions of nss use C99 pretty heavily. Getting C99 support requires a fairly recent version of Visual C++. Microsoft intends that the compiler be used primarily for compiling C++, so they let the C support lag pretty far behind. > 3) Then the SDKs are moved out of maintenance. On Windows our SDK used > in the 4.1.X is already not available. On Mac we have a useable SDK > 10.10 that let us keep the Lion minimum OS, but the question is how > long. Changeing SDKs seems to be a lot of work. We should consider to > move away from the verge of availability. > >> Has anyone studied modern Java JDKs and if there is an impact on >> OpenOffice? > > Mechtilde reported that our build fails on recent Debian due to Java 11. > > > My suggestion is: > > Linux: Move to CentOs 7 (As we have already decided) > > MacOSX: Move to 10.10 (And see how much we can move up on the SDK side. > > Windows: Keep WinXP and Move up SDKs as much as possible. (I think > latest SDK still supports WinXP target, but I am not sure.) > > > All the best > > Peter > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
