To scale this discussion down a bit. The only thing that currently stops
you from using an older version of gcc. Is the GCC_VERSION variable in
the Version file of base. I am not aware of any specific change that
would deliberately break older compilers. It is just that we don't
officially support them any more. There is nothing stopping you to
change that variable and try to use GNUstep with an older version of
gcc. What we wont do is process bug reports that result out of such tests.
As for releasing gui and back for the last base release, we just missed
the point to do so. It would have been possible right after the last
base release, but now the code in gui is only tested with the SVN
version of base and although I am again not aware of anything that
changed in base that is required by gui, it is left to daring users to
really test this. What we should aim for is to have a set of modules
that work together. If the gui version also works well with an older
base version, fine.
So far there has been only Riccardo's reply whether there should be a
release at all. Those this mean we shouldn't do a shared release now?
Then we could thing about just a gui/back release, which shoudl make
Riccardo happy.
Fred
On 09.11.2011 14:15, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
Hi,
I don't remember about this and agreeing on that. We spoke about 2.95
because it had serious limitations and limited c99 compatibility which
was fine to drop and I agreed on that because the inconvenience of
maintaining it outweighed the benefits eventually.
I'd be against dropping 3.x support. What's the problem with 3.x vs.
4.x? 3.2 especially was essentially the "second best" portable option
after 2.95. Portability of gcc got quite worse after 3.4.
Given the past code in gnustep, I never had any problems with gcc3, the
only problems where with 2.95.
Riccardo
PS: additionally I think that the current gui and back release should
still be 2.95 compatible, they are the natural match for the past base
release. Especially since the past releases of gui and back are unusable
with current base. So a coehrent "core" should be released.
On 11/09/11 13:56, David Chisnall wrote:
On 9 Nov 2011, at 05:32, Gregory Casamento wrote:
As I remember it, we agreed on GCC 4.0 and later.
Yup, the rationale was that 2.9x -> 3.x was where most of the
platforms were dropped. Excluding 3.x gives us a more modern compiler
with better language support and doesn't lose us any platforms. Pretty
much anything that might reasonably be expected to run GNUstep that
was supported by 3.x is also supported by 4.x.
David
-- Sent from my Apple II
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev
