I feel that is just making excuses to not aim higher. The whole platform
changes every six months and yes Linux developers are used to the pain
that comes with that. But would it hurt us to try and make Mir one of
the more stable parts of that platform?
On 12/08/15 08:17, Christopher James Halse Rogers wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Kevin Gunn <kevin.g...@canonical.com>
wrote:
I tend to agree, although i am curious to hear what others think.
My hope would be that we'd be balanced about adopting "new language
variants and dependencies" - if we have reasons to do so, then do
those outweigh stagnating for the sake of being able to build on older
ubuntu stables?
I don't think “has to build on latest LTS packages” is a reasonable
requirement. GNOME doesn't support that; the X server doesn't support
that; Mesa doesn't support that.
Developers are used to needing updating dependencies. So much so that
there are very good tools for managing this, such as jhbuild.
Now, requiring a new *compiler* is a more disruptive requirement. Even
here the foundations team maintains a PPA with new toolchains. I also
don't see us requiring new compiler features in the immediate future;
C++17 support isn't going to be reasonable for some time :).
We should be mindful of the cost of adding or updating a dependency, but
not hesitate to do it if doing so makes our jobs easier.
--
Mir-devel mailing list
Mir-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
