Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I did survey available meson versions, and chose what features to
> use. But not really ninja, since I didn't know about this specific issue
> and other than this the ninja version differences were handled by meson.
> As all the issues are related to more precise dependencies, I somehwat
> wonder if it'd be good enough to use less accurate dependencies with
> 1.8.2. But I don't like it.
Nah, I don't like that either. I did a crude survey of ninja's version
history by seeing which version is in each recent Fedora release:
f20/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.4.0
f21/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.5.1
f22/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.5.3
f23/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.7.1
f24/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.7.2
f25/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.8.2
f26/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.8.2
f27/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.8.2
f28/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.8.2
f29/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.8.2
f30/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.9.0
f31/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.1
f32/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.1
f33/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.2
f34/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.2
f35/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.2
f36/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.2
f37/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.10.2
rawhide/ninja-build.spec:Version: 1.11.1
Remembering that Fedora has a six-month release cycle, this shows that
1.8.2 was around for awhile but 1.9.x was a real flash-in-the-pan.
We can probably get away with saying that you need 1.10 or newer.
That's already three-plus years old.
regards, tom lane
