Hello Wayne,
Am 23.10.19 um 18:43 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
> I thought most Linux distros packaged software in accordance with the
> preferred packaging requirements for each distro. It used to be the
> case that distros frowned upon externally build packages because there
> was always the
> I was not aware that this attitude has changed.
Well it's just the way I see it, heck I may be wrong but it isn't really an
attitude as much as upstreams wanting to continuously deliver the latest
versions without distro repo politics. In some cases, there are both distro
and official upstream
On 10/23/2019 10:52 AM, Mark Roszko wrote:
> Can there ever be a statement written somewhere that says "KiCad strives
> to support Ubuntu LTS Latest and Previous, Debian Latest, etc"?
> Basically defining what is considered "older Linux distros" vs "supported".
This is always going to be an issue
Can there ever be a statement written somewhere that says "KiCad strives to
support Ubuntu LTS Latest and Previous, Debian Latest, etc"?
Basically defining what is considered "older Linux distros" vs "supported".
KiCad is unique in not building linux packages directly compared to most
other major
+1
ons. 23. okt. 2019 15.28 skrev Wayne Stambaugh :
> One thing we don't specify on the system requirements page on the KiCad
> website is whether or not this applies to the current stable release or
> the nightly builds. Since we don't specify this, I can see how users
> would assume that it's
It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of Ubuntu.
This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases out there before
KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic :) ). Is it really
worth it to actively support 3 different LTS releases? It doesn't sound
very
I would probably personally prefer if we kept it at 1.59 instead of
dropping it back (I hope to improve the unit testing of the tool framework,
so having the better testing library would make that easier), but we need
to be consistent with the support lifetimes we use. If 16.04 is supported
On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should have
> been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021
> (https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
>
I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should
have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021 (
https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
Since we haven't actually used any code from the
A man can dream xD
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 23:15, Jon Evans wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Diego Herranz <
> diegoherr...@diegoherranz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be
>> officially supported. Just something to have in mind.
>>
>
> I
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Diego Herranz
wrote:
>
> It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be officially
> supported. Just something to have in mind.
>
I love your optimism :)
___
Mailing list:
I understand and that'll mean I'll have to move on, which in my case, it's
not a big issue. I was waiting until 20.04 LTS, though :)
>> The stable version of KiCad will always build with 16.04.
It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be officially
supported. Just something
According to Ubuntu[1], 16.04 looks like it will continue to receive
maintenance updates until April 2021. It looks like we got that wrong.
The boost version in 16.04 is 1.58. There is no newer version of boost
in the back ports repo so we have a decision to make. Drop support for
Ubuntu 16.04
You can still run 5.1 on 16.04. If you want bleeding edge, don't lock
yourself down with a "stable" system.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Diego Herranz
wrote:
>
> I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when we
> stop supporting them?
> I was under the impression it is
I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when we
stop supporting them?
I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully
clear) in which case that date is wrong.
Thanks,
Diego
On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney
wrote:
> The listing I used
The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had Boost
1.59 were the dates given here:
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On that page, it
says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
-Ian
On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz
wrote:
> I
I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1] I've
just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate decision?
Is there anything that can be
10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>>> 1.59?
>> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version
On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>> 1.59?
> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
>
The boost version used in Debian old
Hi,
Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
> 1.59?
I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
--
Regards
Carsten Schoenert
___
Mailing list:
Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to 1.59?
-Ian
On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:05 PM Blair Bonnett
wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 14:10, Wayne Stambaugh
> wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?
>
> Absolutely nothing; the
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 14:10, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>
> What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?
Absolutely nothing; the suggestion of 1.62 was merely a personal opinion.
> If this is the version that has the testing features that you need and
presumably
> all later
Hi,
Am 29.08.19 um 14:09 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
> What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59? If this is
> the version that has the testing features that you need and presumably
> all later versions, then this should suffice. I would prefer that we
> maximize the number of
What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59? If this is
the version that has the testing features that you need and presumably
all later versions, then this should suffice. I would prefer that we
maximize the number of supported distros whenever possible.
Cheers,
Wayne
On
The windows build box for the stable and nightly builds use boost 1.68.
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Blair Bonnett wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Ian McInerney wrote:
> >
> > Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be
> > supported by KiCad until 2023
> >
On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Ian McInerney
wrote:
>
> Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be
supported by KiCad until 2023 (
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/).
Ah, good point. I was only considering the official repos (KiCad 4) rather
than PPAs/people
Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be
supported by KiCad until 2023 (
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/). If anything, it might make
sense to go to 1.59 now, and re-evaluate it farther in the v6 development
(such as when the Python minimum version is also
Hi all,
I've recently been playing with some features I'd like to add to KiCad
(will be able to submit a patch soon I hope). As part of this, I'm adding
some unit tests. I see that unit_test_utils.h within the qa has a number of
macros working around Boost pre-1.59, and there's some features
28 matches
Mail list logo
