Am Mittwoch, 13. Juni 2018 21:45:20 CEST schrieb Stephan Witt <[email protected]>: > Am 13.06.2018 um 21:43 schrieb Stephan Witt <[email protected]>: > > > > Am 13.06.2018 um 20:06 schrieb Scott Kostyshak <[email protected]>: > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:41:03PM +0000, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > >>> On 06/13/2018 03:29 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 06:02:21AM +0000, Kornel Benko wrote: > >>>>> Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 21:10:26 CEST schrieb Kornel Benko > >>>>> <[email protected]>: > >>>>>> Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 21:05:10 CEST schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller > >>>>>> <[email protected]>: > >>>>>>> Kornel Benko <[email protected]> schrieb am Di., > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> My feeling is that the need to compile with QT5.11 is only important > >>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>> the future releases (e.g >= 2.4) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> But some distros already ship Qt 5.11. I cannot compile 2.3.x here > >>>>>>> with > >>>>>>> cmake (openSuse Tumbleweed) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Jürgen > >>>>>> OK, so I am corrected. > >>>>>> > >>>>> Scott, for 2.3.x that would mean: > >>>>> 1.) Either cherry-pick d6b21e2 (without change of minimal cmake > >>>>> version), > >>>>> or > >>>>> 2.) cherry-pick d6b21e2 72a2f92 6343452 cb08d4a 1bf4d7b. > >>>>> > >>>>> You have to decide (I am in favor of 2) > >>>> Thanks for giving the options. Let's see what Richard prefers. > >>> > >>> I am ignorant here. You two choose. > >> > >> I do think we should support Qt 5.11 on 2.3.x because 2.3.x will > >> probably be around for a while. > > > > I’m not against support for Qt 5.11 but it will be around until 5.12 what > > is announced as next stable release by Qt folks, AFAIK. > > > >> But it would be nice to avoid breaking > >> in stable the building with older CMake versions. > >> > >> The main question is: Is it possible to support building LyX Qt 5.11 for > >> those who have CMake >= 3.1.0, but still allow building LyX with a > >> previous Qt version for those who might have an older CMake? Would this > >> be a lot of extra work? If this would be a lot of extra work, I would > >> just say to do whatever you think is best, Kornel. > >> > >> By the way, is 1bf4d7b needed because of the changes from the other > >> commits referenced? I thought it was a separate issue. > > > > I asked this myself too and I’ve tried 2.3.x and 2.2.x on my machine. > > Both branches are working with current cmake. > > $ cmake --version > cmake version 3.10.3 > > Stephan
It does not depend on current cmake version, but on setting in
cmake_minimum_required();
If we set it to version 2.6.4, then cmake should behave like that (provided the
cmake version is >= 2.6.4,
else it cannot work of course)
Kornel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
