>>>>> Robert Horn <rjh...@panix.com> writes:
> Colin Baxter writes:
>>>>>>> Robert Horn <rjh...@panix.com> writes:
>>
>> > Timothy writes:
>>
>> >> Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >>
>> >> Maybe this is a good time to start a discussion about moving
>> >> Org's minimum supported Emacs to 25...?
>>
>> > I checked Red Hat, Centos, Debian, SuSE, and Ubuntu. They are
>> all > 25.1 or later in their current distributions. So that will
>> > probably not cause too much breakage.
>>
>> > -- Robert Horn rjh...@alum.mit.edu
>>
>> Debian 9.13 (which is still supported) has emacs-24.
> Interesting question about LTS. How far back should we consider
> when estimating the impact of a change like this? I was looking
> at current stable versions to estimate the impact of the change.
> Lots of users avoid the bleeding edge distribution releases, but
> most update to track the current stable/LTS releases. Or they
> won't complain that it's unfair for org to expect them to update
> emacs to the current stable/LTS version.
> Ubuntu, Red Hat, CentOS and SuSE are 25.1 or above for their most
> recent long term support releases. Some of these distributions go
> a lot further with various forms of long term support. I think
> Red Hat goes back 8 years for example, and that emacs is really
> old.
> It looks like 25.1 is available, but not yet the default for
> Debian "stretch" (Debian 9.13), which is the "oldstable" for
> Debian. With Debian backport efforts I don't know if this means
> months or years. The web page for Emacs25inStretch has not
> changed since 2017, so it might never happen.
Debian 9.13 may be old but updates are still made available. While
Debian supports the os-version and therefore by implication emacs-24, I
feel org-mode shouldn't deliberately break that support.
