I can get behind that. Both Debian oldstable and CentOS are so notoriously
behind in terms of software updates that anybody using them as a desktop OS
probably very well understands what that means for them regarding package
availability.
On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 01:32:22 +0200 Celtic Minstrel
wrote
>
> On 2016-03-30, at 6:15 PM, Andreas Löf wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Reading the referenced list, it looks like we'll drop support for Debian
> > oldstable (LTS) and CentOs stable, visual studio prior to 2013 (I don't
> > understand the implications of that, in terms of limitations on operating
> > systems for developers) and OS X 10.6 on our development branch.
> > Do we think C++11 support is worth dropping support for those platforms?
>
> Yes for OSX 10.6. I'm also not too concerned about CentOS stable, since I
> know CentOS is very, very conservative about updating packages. Debian
> oldstable might be something to be worried about, but in my research I
> thought I found it to be packaged with GCC 4.7, which would mean that it
> will still be supported. That said, it appears that even Debian stable
> doesn't have Wesnoth 1.12 at this time, so it may not be such a problem to
> drop support for oldstable.
>
> The Visual Studio requirement has no implications on support for Windows
> platforms. MSVC 2013 can build XP-compatible programs with a little extra
> work, and in any case the official Windows builds are (currently) not built
> using MSVC.
>
>
>
> ~CelticMinstrel
> ___
> Wesnoth-dev mailing list
> Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
> https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
>
___
Wesnoth-dev mailing list
Wesnoth-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev