Hi Andrew, On Sat, 6 Mar 2021 at 14:36, Andrew C Aitchison <and...@aitchison.me.uk> wrote: > If, in five, ten, fifteen or even twenty five years, I don't have > hardware that can run an existing docker image, then I'm less sure that > docker is the answer. Will I have to rely on someone having made that > Apple-ARM docker image of GDAL 3.2.2 back in 2021 ?
Again, Docker's a shortcut. You can always build GDAL binaries from the 3.2.2 source in future as long as you can find a C/C++ compiler with a matching libc implementation. It might be simpler if it was GCC or LLVM/Clang or MSVC but you can feasibly make it work with any future compiler with (hopefully) limited effort. Likewise, if the compiler supports a future CPU architecture it should build & work with (hopefully) limited effort. Or run it via an emulator, given how ubiquitous x86 is they'll probably still be emulating it in another 100 years. Currently (for example) Debian builds and packages GDAL releases for amd64, arm64, armel, armhf, i386, mips, mips64el, mipsel, ppc64el, and s390x. And GDAL builds every commit in CI against 32 + 64 bit Linux (with both GCC & Clang), macOS, Windows, and Android. There's no shortage of supported CPU architectures, compilers, and operating systems at present. And worst-case, if C++ is long gone, future-you or your AI helper could port the code to some other language. Rob :) _______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list gdal-dev@lists.osgeo.org https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
