Mir on LTS { was RFC: Move to C++14 }

[Robert Carr]

>> - Does Mir (and the downstreams) really need to support Trusty?

I can't really comment. I'm not so sure graphics platform developers would
target the LTS though as they wouldn't expect anyone to run their code on
the LTS (?).

>> For the latter, I can imagine we could backport the Mir trunk to Trusty
(updating gcc, other package dependencies, downstreams, etc, and their
dependencies in turn). But I'm afraid, this might be akin to basically
slowly updating everything and ending up in the end with Vivid.

I think this is ok and I think other projects have done it in the past at
least in the form of a PPA?

P.S. "e.g. Trusty uses gcc 4.8, whereas vivid, and utopic, uses gcc 4.9"

I'm sure there are some real GCC dependencies but the GCC dependency in the
packaging is artificial and used to avoid ABI breaks during a race
condition in building Mir+Downstreams and releasing a new GCC.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Cemil Azizoglu <
cemil.azizoglu at canonical.com> wrote:

> We had a discussion on supporting LTS at the standup today. We see a
> number of issues :
>
> - Supporting the LTS (Trusty) Mir codebase would not be useful due to the
> huge amount of development effort that has gone into Mir since the LTS
> release. Many interfaces changed, features added, codebase reorged, etc..
>
> - Supporting the Mir trunk on Trusty would be problematic as well due to
> the bumped package dependencies (e.g. Trusty uses gcc 4.8, whereas vivid,
> and utopic, uses gcc 4.9); due to downstreams not having Trusty branches,
> etc..
>
> So we need to decide :
>
> - Does Mir (and the downstreams) really need to support Trusty?
> - If yes, what is the simplest way to do that?
>
> For the latter, I can imagine we could backport the Mir trunk to Trusty
> (updating gcc, other package dependencies, downstreams, etc, and their
> dependencies in turn). But I'm afraid, this might be akin to basically
> slowly updating everything and ending up in the end with Vivid.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> -Cemil
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Oliver Ries <oliver.ries at canonical.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Alan Griffiths <
>> alan.griffiths at canonical.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/02/15 12:37, Alexandros Frantzis wrote:
>>> > Let me know what you think.
>>>
>>> There are probably four important constituencies that need to build Mir
>>> and they may well be targeting different platforms.
>>>
>>> 1. Mir developers - they are clearly targeting vivid
>>> 2. Client-side "toolkit" developers - these could be targeting the LTS
>>> (trusty) or the stable release (utopic) as well as vivid
>>> 3. Server-side "Shell" developers - the ones we are aware of are
>>> targeting vivid
>>> 4. Graphics "platform" developers - there are none, but they would
>>> likely target the LTS (trusty)
>>>
>>
>> yeah, please keep the L(ong) in LTS in mind :)
>>
>> thx,
>> O.
>>
>> --
>> Mir-devel mailing list
>> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
>> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Cemil Azizoglu
> Mir Display Server - Team Lead
> Canonical USA
>
> --
> Mir-devel mailing list
> Mir-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/mir-devel
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/mir-devel/attachments/20150217/f9ca18ed/attachment-0001.html>