Frameworks compiler and Qt requirements after Qt 5.7?

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Friday 26 June 2015 16:30:25 Luigi Toscano wrote:
> On Friday 26 of June 2015 16:24:50 Mark Gaiser wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > If Qt's plans progress according to what they post on the mailinglist then
> > Qt 5.6 will be LTS, 5.7 will up the compiler requirements to the
> > following:
> > 
> > GCC 4.7
> > Clang 3.2
> > MSVC 2012
> > 
> > Framework currently requires:
> > GCC 4.5
> > Clang 3.1
> > MSVC 2012
> > 
> > When frameworks started it had slightly less strict compiler requirements
> > then Qt had. But now that Qt is upping the compiler requirement, we should
> > follow as well. In fact, we should probably also update the Qt version
> > requirement which right now is at 5.2.
> > 
> > I have no clue when Qt 5.7 will be released, but i'm guessing around this
> > time next year. Frameworks currently is at version 5.11 (5.12 coming up).
> > If we add a year to that then frameworks is at version 5.24 when Qt 5.7 is
> > released (big guess!). So why don't we change our requirements starting
> > with frameworks 5.25 (nice number as well)? I'd propose changing it to the
> > following:
> > 
> > Qt 5.7 minimal requirement
> > GCC 5.1 (or somewhere in 5.x)
> > Clang 3.6.1 (or perhaps even 3.7)
> > MSVC 2015
> 
> Even if we change the required version of Qt, why would we need to increase
> the compiler requirements? I think that if we decide to go this way, we
> should follow the same route: Qt requirements for Frameworks.
> That said, I think that bumping the minimum required versions of a specific
> Qt version immediately after its release would be a bit too much.

Fully agree. I don't think it's currently the time to start considering making 
Qt 5.7 a requirement. We can start thinking about making maybe 5.6 a new 
requirement once it got released as it's a long term release. Given that 5.6 
will be a long term release I would say it's a clear no for considering 
anything newer as a framework dependency for the near future. It's what som 
distros will stick to for quite some time and we don't need to make things 
needlessly more difficult.

Thus I think the question about compiler requirement and Qt requirement are 
not coupled. Just because we raise the one or the other doesn't mean we should 
raise both.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20150626/6eb470d6/attachment.sig>