David Marchand <david.march...@redhat.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 1:10 PM Bruce Richardson > <bruce.richard...@intel.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 12:59:35PM +0100, David Marchand wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 12:29 PM Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: >> > > >> > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 12:02 +0100, David Marchand wrote: >> > > > meson 0.53.0 has a compatibility issue [1] with the python 3.5.2 that >> > > > comes >> > > > in Ubuntu 16.04. >> > > > Let's pin meson to 0.52.0 while the fix is being prepared in meson. >> > > > >> > > > 1: >> > > > https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/6427 >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: David Marchand < >> > > > david.march...@redhat.com >> > > > > >> > > > --- >> > > > .ci/linux-setup.sh | 2 +- >> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > > >> > > Acked-by: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> >> > >> > There is a 0.52.1 version available, so I suppose we can blacklist >> > meson < 0.53 instead. >> > Thought? >> > >> > If noone objects, I will apply a fix by the end of the day. >> > >> Wondering if there is value in using 0.47.1, the minimum version we >> support, to catch potential issues with someone using features from newer >> versions? I suspect there are more people using the latest releases of >> meson than the baseline supported version? > > Testing with a fixed version seems better in a CI, and since we > announce this minimum version, then yes, it makes sense. > I will post a v2.
Why is 0.47.1 still the minimum? Don't we require features that are introduced as of 0.50?
