---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105371/
---
Review request for KDE Runtime.
Description
---
The declared-as-suppo
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Ivan Cukic wrote:
> From Ben Cooksley:
>> Debian Squeeze has gcc 4.4.5, and this is the base of build.kde.org.
>> It would be appreciated if we did not have to run Debian Testing on
>> the build slaves.
>
> Honestly, while having Jenkins around is quite neat, I do
>From Ben Cooksley:
> Debian Squeeze has gcc 4.4.5, and this is the base of build.kde.org.
> It would be appreciated if we did not have to run Debian Testing on
> the build slaves.
Honestly, while having Jenkins around is quite neat, I don't see a helper tool
as a valid reason to make the develop
> Can you explain why you need a more modern version, I see a good analysis of
> what the current situation regarding compiler availability but i fail to
> see why we need a newer compiler.
For me, the main reasons for this request are:
- lambdas (gcc 4.5)
- variadic templates (4.3 / 4.4)
- auto
On quarta-feira, 27 de junho de 2012 23.28.30, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
> is GCC 4.6 while some othe
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Raphael Kubo da Costa
wrote:
> Ivan Čukić writes:
>
>> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
>> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
>> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
>>
Am 27.06.2012, 23:52 Uhr, schrieb Alexander Neundorf :
On Wednesday 27 June 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote:
Hi all,
...
As an additional argument for raising the bar, here are the GCC
versions in most modern distros (collected by other people, didn't
check):
- Debian - 4.7 (testing)
- openSuse 12.1 -
El Dimecres, 27 de juny de 2012, a les 23:28:30, Ivan Čukić va escriure:
> Hi all,
Hi
>
> I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
> started asking for more modern compilers.
Can you explain why you need a more modern version, I see a good analysis of
what the curr
On Wednesday 27 June 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Hi all,
...
> As an additional argument for raising the bar, here are the GCC
> versions in most modern distros (collected by other people, didn't
> check):
> - Debian - 4.7 (testing)
> - openSuse 12.1 - 4.6
> - Kubuntu - 4.6
> - Fedora 16 - 4.6
> - Ge
> > Mainly, the responses were positive (from both users and developers).
>
> What is the current minimum requirement?
Can't find anything similar for the later versions of KDE SC, but for 4.4 it
is quite a list (even gcc 3.3 [1]):
http://techbase.kde.org/Schedules/KDE4/4.4_Requirements
Cheer
Ivan Čukić writes:
> Now, my proposal here is to update the required versions for
> Frameworks 4 to reflect those of KDE Frameworks 5 / Qt 5. Now, I've
> found different information for this - skelly says [2] the requirement
> is GCC 4.6 while some other places state it is GCC 4.5, so I'm not
> s
On Wednesday 27 June 2012 23:28:30 Ivan Čukić wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
> started asking for more modern compilers. I've stated there I'll start
> the discussion on k-c-d once we branch out 4.9, so I'm doing as
> promised. The post was
> Hi all,
>
> I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
> started asking for more modern compilers. I've stated there I'll start
> the discussion on k-c-d once we branch out 4.9, so I'm doing as
> promised. The post was only about kactivities, but the same could be
> appl
Hi all,
I've tested the waters some time ago [1] what would people say if we
started asking for more modern compilers. I've stated there I'll start
the discussion on k-c-d once we branch out 4.9, so I'm doing as
promised. The post was only about kactivities, but the same could be
applied to more s
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104965/#review15211
---
This review has been submitted with commit
a277b80df8c5fc2ac16
> On June 27, 2012, 4:50 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > Makes sense, please commit to master.
>
> Aleksey Yermakov wrote:
> I'm afraid, I don't have write rights. Could you please point me to some
> documentation which will help me commit this patch?
>
I will commit this one for yo
> On June 27, 2012, 4:50 p.m., Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote:
> > Makes sense, please commit to master.
I'm afraid, I don't have write rights. Could you please point me to some
documentation which will help me commit this patch?
- Aleksey
--
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104965/#review15206
---
Ship it!
Makes sense, please commit to master.
- Raphael Kubo
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/104965/
---
(Updated June 27, 2012, 4:29 p.m.)
Review request for KDE Base Apps.
Cha
On Sunday 17 June 2012 12:49:46 Ambroz Bizjak wrote:
> That doesn't quite work, for me at least. See the bug I reported
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=297720
> Nobody seems to care though.
I posted a fix for that bug on June 18, and asked for testing.
Nobody seems to care, though :-)
--
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105337/#review15194
---
This review has been submitted with commit
f4fbf758ce808b52432
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/105337/#review15189
---
Ship it!
Looks good.
One might argue that statusbar visibilit
22 matches
Mail list logo
