On Monday 18 November 2013 12:49:39 Stephen Kelly wrote: > Stephen Kelly wrote: > >> It'd need to be released quite a bit before us to > >> be something we can consider as a dependency. At that point I'm > >> considering having 2.8.12 as dependency for the release (so that it got > >> time to spread, sounds less likely with CMake 3). > > > > I don't understand. Why is CMake 3 not likely to spread? > > My point here was that suggesting with a wink and a nudge that CMake 3.0.0 > is highly likely to have lots of incompatibilities (as I guessed you were > doing?) and therefore not spread is not appropriate.
Not at all what I was doing. :-) > You have enough credibility that people would believe it and spread it, but > it is not true. That's not how backward compatibility works in CMake. I know, I was more thinking about the natural spreading of new version in distros. The time they package stuff and that ends up in released versions. Regards. -- Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-frameworks-devel mailing list Kde-frameworks-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-frameworks-devel
