+1 - I would be great to have C++11 support. I would like to see range for added to the list of acceptable C++11 features to use.
-Bryan > On Jun 16, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Leif Hedstrom <zw...@apache.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > [Tldr; We bump the minimum supported version to CentOS7/RHEL7, or, > CentOS6/RHEL6 + devtools-2 compilers.] > > > Today, our minimum run- and build-time requirements are based on a simple > criteria: Whatever comes with CentOS / RHEL v6.x. This dictates: > > * openssl-1.0.1e > * gcc-4.4.7 > * glibc-2.12 > * pcre-7.8 > * tcl-8.5.7 > * expat-2.0.1 > > Needed when building from source (or making a distro tar-ball): > * autoconf-2.63 > * automake-1.11.1 > * libtool-2.2.6 > > Optional (but recommended): > * libcap-2.16 > * hwloc-1.5 > * libunwind-1.1 > > > My suggestion is that we bump the tool-chain versions for the required > packages to what is provided by CentOS7, which can be installed using e.g. > http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-2/6/ > <http://people.centos.org/tru/devtools-2/6/> .This would bump those required > versions to: > > * openssl-1.0.1e (same) > * gcc-4.8.5 (devtools-2 only has 4.8.1, but that’s probably ok?) > * pcre-8.32 > * tcl-8.5.13 > * expat-2.1.0 > > > I suggest we keep the requirement on glibc at v2.12, since that’s a real PITA > to upgrade safely. Odds are that the only thing that matters here is the GCC > version, which is also why we’d want to do this. gcc v4.8 or later would give > us almost all C++11 features available: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html > <https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8/cxx0x_status.html> > > But, this is not a reason to go nuts and use every damn C++11 and STL feature > there is, our normal development rules till applies! Keep it simple so I can > still understand at least some of the code … Sorry Brian! :) > > > Tldr; We bump the minimum supported version to either CentOS7/RHEL7, or, > CentOS6/RHEL6 + devtools-2 compilers. > > Thoughts? > > — leif >
