Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Dave Fisher-2
Hi -

The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.

Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?

Some facts:
(1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.

(2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.

(3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.

No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.

Regards,
Dave

[1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210717
[2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Jim Jagielski
Here is my thought.

AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.

The OpenOffice community is much, much larger than the population targeted by LibreOffice, MS Office and even GSuite. AOO exists to reach, support, and empower everyone.

So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.

Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.

https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/devtools/build-scripts/4.2.0-Dev2/unxmacos/build_aoo64bit_on_macos.sh?view=markup


> On Sep 15, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.
>
> Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?
>
> Some facts:
> (1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
> This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.
>
> (2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
> It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.
>
> (3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.
>
> No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> [1] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210717
> [2] https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201475
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Marcus (OOo)
Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
> Here is my thought.
>
> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.

right, an argument that oft got forgotten.

> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>
> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.
>

Sounds good and helpful.

I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically)
possible on a low level.

Marcus



>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.
>>
>> Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?
>>
>> Some facts:
>> (1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
>> This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.
>>
>> (2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
>> It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.
>>
>> (3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.
>>
>> No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Dave Fisher-2


Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>> Here is my thought.
>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>
> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.

I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that line can continue to be an option.

>
>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.
>
> Sounds good and helpful.
>
> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible on a low level.

My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.

This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.

Regards,
Dave

>
> Marcus
>
>
>
>>>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.
>>>
>>> Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?
>>>
>>> Some facts:
>>> (1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
>>> This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.
>>>
>>> (2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
>>> It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.
>>>
>>> (3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.
>>>
>>> No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Matthias Seidel
Hi Dave,

Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:

>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Here is my thought.
>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that line can continue to be an option.
>
>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.
>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>
>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible on a low level.
> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>
> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.
That also happened with Windows...

Regards,

   Matthias

>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.
>>>>
>>>> Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Some facts:
>>>> (1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
>>>> This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
>>>> It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.
>>>>
>>>> No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Marcus (OOo)
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-2
Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:

>
>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>> Here is my thought.
>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>>
>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
>
> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that line can continue to be an option.

don't worry, I haven't meant you. ;-)
It was just general.

>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.
>>
>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>
>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible on a low level.
>
> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>
> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.

When we haven't the knowledge anymore to support things then we have a
problem. Yes. But this is not special for the baseline of an OS.

Marcus



>>>>> On Sep 15, 2020, at 6:59 PM, Dave Fisher <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The 4.1,X line of releases should remain focused on MacOSX Lion 10.7.
>>>>
>>>> Which version should we target for 4.2.0 and trunk?
>>>>
>>>> Some facts:
>>>> (1) The minimum version of MacOSX you can get easily is Yosemite 10.10.
>>>> This runs on these machines. [1] The era is 2007-2009.
>>>>
>>>> (2) Catalina 10.15 is Apple's preferred version
>>>> It runs on these machines. [2] The era is roughly 2012-2013.
>>>>
>>>> (3) Building for Lion 10.7 requires special configuration of Xcode which makes it hard to reproduce our community builds.
>>>>
>>>> No hurry to have this discussion. I just wanted to gauge developers thoughts before I make another attempt to build.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Peter Kovacs-3

Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, and
at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick to the
old code for long time it will make maintenance or development more
difficuilt.

Am 17.09.20 um 23:57 schrieb Marcus:

> Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>> Here is my thought.
>>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software"
>>>> community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can
>>>> afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the
>>>> OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing
>>>> countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots
>>>> of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>>>
>>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
>>
>> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that
>> line can continue to be an option.
>
> don't worry, I haven't meant you. ;-)
> It was just general.
To maintain 4.1.x line is a task. We have not many people maintaining
release lines. Keeping more then 2 Release lines, can be difficult.

>
>>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops...
>>>> OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current
>>>> versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck
>>>> on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our
>>>> community builds support them.
>>>
>>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>>
>>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as
>>> (technically) possible on a low level.
>>
>> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community
>> member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>>
>> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.
>
> When we haven't the knowledge anymore to support things then we have a
> problem. Yes. But this is not special for the baseline of an OS.

I think there is. And it is users usage.

If we look at the numbers for MacOS X (I found some here:
https://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide

We could assume that i.e. Lion is not important.

Maybe it would wise to ask people on Forums to vote which versions
should be kept. Kiving the community a choice, and a voice.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Marcus (OOo)
Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, and
> at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick to the
> old code for long time it will make maintenance or development more
> difficuilt.

yes, that's why I wrote:

... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible ...

So, when we got our limit here then it's OK.

> Am 17.09.20 um 23:57 schrieb Marcus:
>> Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>> Here is my thought.
>>>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software"
>>>>> community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can
>>>>> afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the
>>>>> OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing
>>>>> countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots
>>>>> of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>>>>
>>>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
>>>
>>> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that
>>> line can continue to be an option.
>>
>> don't worry, I haven't meant you. ;-)
>> It was just general.
> To maintain 4.1.x line is a task. We have not many people maintaining
> release lines. Keeping more then 2 Release lines, can be difficult.
>>
>>>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops...
>>>>> OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>>>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current
>>>>> versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck
>>>>> on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our
>>>>> community builds support them.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>>>
>>>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as
>>>> (technically) possible on a low level.
>>>
>>> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community
>>> member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>>>
>>> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.
>>
>> When we haven't the knowledge anymore to support things then we have a
>> problem. Yes. But this is not special for the baseline of an OS.
>
> I think there is. And it is users usage.
>
> If we look at the numbers for MacOS X (I found some here:
> https://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide
>
> We could assume that i.e. Lion is not important.
>
> Maybe it would wise to ask people on Forums to vote which versions
> should be kept. Kiving the community a choice, and a voice.

Good idea. Then we know what is really used most by the users.

Marcus


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Dave Fisher-2


> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or development more difficuilt.
>
> yes, that's why I wrote:
>
> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible ...

As long as a compiler exists on that platform that compiles the older language standard we should not upgrade.

I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a minimum platform.

My original suggestion is that:

(1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.

(2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider more recent OSs as minimums?
Is there anything currently on that branch that is a concern?

(3) Should we consider more recent OS minimums for trunk which may become 4.5 or 5.0?

What should drive the choice for a more recent minimums? Unavoidable incompatibilities.

Has anyone studied modern Java JDKs and if there is an impact on OpenOffice?

Regards,
Dave

>
> So, when we got our limit here then it's OK.
>
>> Am 17.09.20 um 23:57 schrieb Marcus:
>>> Am 17.09.20 um 21:15 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 17, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 17.09.20 um 15:00 schrieb Jim Jagielski:
>>>>>> Here is my thought.
>>>>>> AOO exists to serve a large segment of the "I need office software" community which is, IMO at least, dis-served. Not everyone can afford the latest and greatest PC, with the latest version of the OS, and lots of RAM and disk. This is especially true in developing countries. If you have recent hardware and software, you have lots of options. If you don't, you are screwed.
>>>>>
>>>>> right, an argument that oft got forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> I wasn’t forgetting this argument. If we keep 4.1.x around then that line can continue to be an option.
>>>
>>> don't worry, I haven't meant you. ;-)
>>> It was just general.
>> To maintain 4.1.x line is a task. We have not many people maintaining release lines. Keeping more then 2 Release lines, can be difficult.
>>>
>>>>>> So with that in mind, baselining a "old" version of macOS (Oops... OS X ;) ) makes sense.
>>>>>> Now, of course, you can build and run AOO on recent/current versions of macOS and hardware. We want to ensure that those stuck on older versions can also do that and, especially, ensure that our community builds support them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds good and helpful.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm +1 for keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible on a low level.
>>>>
>>>> My fear is that we end up in a situation where only one community member has the ability to build and for whatever reason they disappear.
>>>>
>>>> This is not an idle concern. It has happened twice with macOS.
>>>
>>> When we haven't the knowledge anymore to support things then we have a problem. Yes. But this is not special for the baseline of an OS.
>> I think there is. And it is users usage.
>> If we look at the numbers for MacOS X (I found some here: https://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market-share/desktop/worldwide
>> We could assume that i.e. Lion is not important.
>> Maybe it would wise to ask people on Forums to vote which versions should be kept. Kiving the community a choice, and a voice.
>
> Good idea. Then we know what is really used most by the users.
>
> Marcus
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Peter Kovacs-3

Am 20.09.20 um 20:16 schrieb Dave Fisher:

>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years, and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or development more difficuilt.
>> yes, that's why I wrote:
>>
>> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically) possible ...
> As long as a compiler exists on that platform that compiles the older language standard we should not upgrade.
>
> I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a minimum platform.
>
> My original suggestion is that:
>
> (1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.
IMHO we should retire 4.1.X as soon as we have stabilized 4.2.X
> (2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider more recent OSs as minimums?
> Is there anything currently on that branch that is a concern?
>
> (3) Should we consider more recent OS minimums for trunk which may become 4.5 or 5.0?

I think we should adjust 4.2.0 but keep trunk the same for now. After
release we will have some more fixes to do.

>
> What should drive the choice for a more recent minimums? Unavoidable incompatibilities.

1) I think we have to work between OSes our user use and the
Requirements our dependencies have.

2) We have difficulties to update some dependencies since they made a
change to c++11 or later standard. In a serious way it would mean we
would have to maintain those dependencies or we find a way to backport
some C++ features. (i do not have a list.)

3) Then the SDKs are moved out of maintenance. On Windows our SDK used
in the 4.1.X is already not available. On Mac we have a useable SDK
10.10 that let us keep the Lion minimum OS, but the question is how
long. Changeing SDKs seems to be a lot of work. We should consider to
move away from the verge of availability.

> Has anyone studied modern Java JDKs and if there is an impact on OpenOffice?

Mechtilde reported that our build fails on recent Debian due to Java 11.


My suggestion is:

Linux: Move to CentOs 7 (As we have already decided)

MacOSX: Move to 10.10 (And see how much we can move up on the SDK side.

Windows: Keep WinXP and Move up SDKs as much as possible. (I think
latest SDK still supports WinXP target, but I am not sure.)


All the best

Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Don Lewis-2
In reply to this post by Dave Fisher-2
On 20 Sep, Dave Fisher wrote:

>
>
>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years,
>>> and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick
>>> to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or
>>> development more difficuilt.
>>
>> yes, that's why I wrote:
>>
>> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically)
>>     possible ...
>
> As long as a compiler exists on that platform that compiles the older
> language standard we should not upgrade.
>
> I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to
> do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a
> minimum platform.
>
> My original suggestion is that:
>
> (1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.
>
> (2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider
> more recent OSs as minimums? Is there anything currently on that
> branch that is a concern?

In 4.2 and trunk we switched to supporting a newer version of gstreamer,
which is only available in CentOS 7 and above I believe.

If you want to have a working gstreamer, which is optional, 4.1.x is
stuck at CentOS 5 and 6.  CentOS 7 does not have a package for the old
gstreamer.

I don't know the situation for the other Linux distros.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Don Lewis-2
In reply to this post by Peter Kovacs-3
On 20 Sep, Peter Kovacs wrote:

>
> Am 20.09.20 um 20:16 schrieb Dave Fisher:
>>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years,
>>>> and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick
>>>> to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or
>>>>development more difficuilt. yes, that's why I wrote:
>>>
>>> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically)
>>>possible ... As long as a compiler exists on that platform that
>>>compiles the older language standard we should not upgrade.
>>
>> I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to
>> do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a
>> minimum platform.
>>
>> My original suggestion is that:
>>
>> (1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.
> IMHO we should retire 4.1.X as soon as we have stabilized 4.2.X
>> (2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider
>> more recent OSs as minimums? Is there anything currently on that
>> branch that is a concern?
>>
>> (3) Should we consider more recent OS minimums for trunk which may
>> become 4.5 or 5.0?
>
> I think we should adjust 4.2.0 but keep trunk the same for now. After
> release we will have some more fixes to do.
>
>>
>> What should drive the choice for a more recent minimums? Unavoidable
>> incompatibilities.
>
> 1) I think we have to work between OSes our user use and the
> Requirements our dependencies have.
>
> 2) We have difficulties to update some dependencies since they made a
> change to c++11 or later standard. In a serious way it would mean we
> would have to maintain those dependencies or we find a way to backport
> some C++ features. (i do not have a list.)

The only requirement for C++11 that I've run into is with very recent
versions of vigra.  That's not a depenency that we've ever tried to
upgrade.  I only discovered the issue because of the FreeBSD port, which
was using the system vigra package.  When vigra was updated on FreeBSD,
the port stopped building in C++98 mode, so I switched the port to the
bundled vigra.

The biggest problem I've run into is the lack of C99 support by the old
version of Visual C++ that we use on Windows.  Recent versions of nss
use C99 pretty heavily.  Getting C99 support requires a fairly recent
version of Visual C++.  Microsoft intends that the compiler be used
primarily for compiling C++, so they let the C support lag pretty far
behind.


> 3) Then the SDKs are moved out of maintenance. On Windows our SDK used
> in the 4.1.X is already not available. On Mac we have a useable SDK
> 10.10 that let us keep the Lion minimum OS, but the question is how
> long. Changeing SDKs seems to be a lot of work. We should consider to
> move away from the verge of availability.
>
>> Has anyone studied modern Java JDKs and if there is an impact on
>> OpenOffice?
>
> Mechtilde reported that our build fails on recent Debian due to Java 11.
>
>
> My suggestion is:
>
> Linux: Move to CentOs 7 (As we have already decided)
>
> MacOSX: Move to 10.10 (And see how much we can move up on the SDK side.
>
> Windows: Keep WinXP and Move up SDKs as much as possible. (I think
> latest SDK still supports WinXP target, but I am not sure.)
>
>
> All the best
>
> Peter
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Minimum MacOS Version for trunk and 4.2.0 builds

Jim Jagielski
In reply to this post by Don Lewis-2
Yep... We needed to update our community build server from CentOS5 to CentOS7 due to gstreamer. There was talk about working around that, but it never came to fruition. One option is that we provide 2 sets of community builds for Linux: one on CentOS5 w/o gstreamer and one built on CentOS7 w/ gstreamer. It's a little more work, but I don't mind.

> On Sep 22, 2020, at 2:36 AM, Don Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 20 Sep, Dave Fisher wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 20, 2020, at 9:40 AM, Marcus <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Am 19.09.20 um 12:36 schrieb Peter Kovacs:
>>>> Keep in mind that C++ Standard has changed a lot in reasoned years,
>>>> and at least I would like to go with the new standard. If we stick
>>>> to the old code for long time it will make maintenance or
>>>> development more difficuilt.
>>>
>>> yes, that's why I wrote:
>>>
>>> ... keeping the baseline for every OS as long as (technically)
>>>    possible ...
>>
>> As long as a compiler exists on that platform that compiles the older
>> language standard we should not upgrade.
>>
>> I started this thread to discuss build tools and to consider what to
>> do when it becomes difficult to build and have the result work on a
>> minimum platform.
>>
>> My original suggestion is that:
>>
>> (1) 4.1.X always keeps the current OS minimums.
>>
>> (2) Should 4.2 branch also keep the current OS minimums or consider
>> more recent OSs as minimums? Is there anything currently on that
>> branch that is a concern?
>
> In 4.2 and trunk we switched to supporting a newer version of gstreamer,
> which is only available in CentOS 7 and above I believe.
>
> If you want to have a working gstreamer, which is optional, 4.1.x is
> stuck at CentOS 5 and 6.  CentOS 7 does not have a package for the old
> gstreamer.
>
> I don't know the situation for the other Linux distros.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>