On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 11:27:58AM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > On 10/29/2015 12:48 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 08:52:32PM -0400, Richard Heck wrote: > >>>2. Pavel's idea that for key dependencies such as Qt or TeX we should > >>>look where stable/future versions on major linux distros are. e.g. > >>>stable debian. Another possibility is to look at the current Ubuntu LTS. > >>>If we implement this, we should be specific (e.g. say explicitly Debian > >>>Stable and Ubuntu LTS). > >>I think we have long had an implicit policy like this: Don't break Debian. > >>But we could change the target: Don't break Ubuntu LTS and/or latest Centos. > >>Both of these are conservative without being glacial. I'm not sure how much > >>difference that would make in practice. > >I still think there is some use to making the policy well-defined and > >explicit. > > Yes, and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I just meant that, since we've > long had an implicit such policy, there oughtn't to be any opposition to > making it explicit. We just need to decide which distro we're targeting as a > sort of mininum. Debian or Ubuntu LTS would be reasonable. (Is there also > need to have some policy regarding OSX and Windows versions?)
Ah makes sense. Regarding for example Ubuntu LTS, how should we state such a rule? If LyX has a major release on May 1st 2016 does that mean we can depend on the latest versions in Ubuntu 16.04? That does not feel correct. So then something like "6 months after an LTS release" ? Meaning if we have a major release on May 1st 2016 then we could still only depend on Ubuntu 14.04 but if the major release is November 1st 2016 then we could depend on Ubuntu 16.04? Scott
