Bruce Richardson <bruce.richard...@intel.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 10:10:00AM -0500, Aaron Conole wrote: >> 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? >> > No, it should still work fine, and a quick sanity check tested with 0.47.1 > on my system shows no issues, so I think we are good. > > There are some warnings printed about future features when you use a later > version, but in all cases the extra parameters added are just ignored by > the older versions, so compatiblity is maintained. Adding 0.47.1 to the CI > will also help avoid any inadvertent new version requirements from sneaking > in.
Makes sense to me. Is there a way to make it whitelist the warnings we know about already? It would be nice to have the CI environment be warning-free (but I don't object to 0.47.1 being a minimum version or anything). > /Bruce
