Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Kevin Gunn
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? br,kg On T

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Christopher James Halse Rogers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:08 AM, Kevin Gunn 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 b

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Daniel van Vugt
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 Ha

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Christopher James Halse Rogers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:03 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote: 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 o

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Daniel van Vugt
We did. C++14 was completely unnecessary and the reason why you can't build Mir on our latest LTS today (without PPAs etc). The change to the code was mostly cosmetic. Yes, that did make our lives slightly easier in parts, but to what cost? If the cost is that some great developers using trusty

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Christopher James Halse Rogers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote: We did. C++14 was completely unnecessary and the reason why you can't build Mir on our latest LTS today (without PPAs etc). The change to the code was mostly cosmetic. Yes, that did make our lives slightly easier in parts, but to what co

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Cemil Azizoglu
Is there some external interest in Mir that is prompting this? Do we have evidence that there are people that want to contribute but find it inconvenient to do so? If so, assuming they have a good reason, it'd make sense to support older OS versions. If not, then it doesn't make sense to create ext

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Daniel van Vugt
My personal experience (and what I've observed in our users over years of playing customer support) is that plenty of intelligent people prefer LTS over the latest release. For stability and long term support. I feel that's a reasonable and intelligent decision to make if someone wants to keep

Mir's not building

2015-08-11 Thread Daniel van Vugt
Mir does not build on a fully updated wily system today. This is expected as the whole archive is "transitioning" (rebuilding) to GCC 5 and a new C++ ABI. A workaround for the time being is: cmake .. -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=g++-4.9 -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=gcc-4.9 or clang of course. You can monitor

Re: Mir's not building

2015-08-11 Thread Daniel van Vugt
This also means autolandings won't work. So best to hold off any top approvals till wily is updated and working again. On 12/08/15 12:16, Daniel van Vugt wrote: Mir does not build on a fully updated wily system today. This is expected as the whole archive is "transitioning" (rebuilding) to GCC

Re: The moving target of OS support

2015-08-11 Thread Christopher James Halse Rogers
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:02 PM, Daniel van Vugt wrote: My personal experience (and what I've observed in our users over years of playing customer support) is that plenty of intelligent people prefer LTS over the latest release. For stability and long term support. I feel that's a reasonable