Moving KWayland to frameworks

[Kevin Ottens]

On Thursday 10 December 2015 12:43:29 Martin Graesslin wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 12:24:06 PM CET Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > > As I just said: I consider this as a useless exercise and a waste of my
> > > time (and of anybody else who would do that).
> > 
> > Note that it's a waste of time which could have been easily avoided. If
> > the goal was to get something like KWayland in, the white listed
> > constructs were known and documented.
> 
> KWayland originated from KWin which already used full C++11 support at that
> time. The aim was to use it in other parts of workspace at that time. Moving
> into frameworks was not a direct aim at that time. It's something which
> showed up as possibly useful only later on.

Right, hence my "if" earlier. I guess we'll see more cases like that in the 
future. We're in a similar situation in Zanshin, I proactively reduce the 
amount of C++11 I use there for anything which looks reusable in KF5.

> > Bumping gcc requirements also has an impact on embedded platforms which
> > tend to have older gcc. It's clearly one of the main nest of users for
> > KWayland IMHO. I'm not sure what older gcc they tend to run with on the
> > platforms supporting wayland but that's still something to consider
> > (especially since wayland itself is not very demanding on the compiler as
> > you pointed out).
>
> In my opinion it's not realistic to restrict the gcc compiler requirement
> anyway. We don't have CI coverage for it, so we never know whether it
> actually would compile. My linux distribution doesn't provide gcc < 4.8
> anymore, I wouldn't know how to ensure that the code actually works. This
> makes it in my opinion unrealistic that I try to restrict the compiler
> requirement again.

By the same argument we would not even try to support VS2012. We have the same 
issue there. I agree with the fact that the CI support is not up to the task 
for now, I'm not sure that's a reason to ignore the issue preventing the CI to 
ever catch up.

> Anyway, I don't see that I have time to rewind the C++11 usage. As we cannot
> increase the compiler requirement we probably have to keep KWayland in kde/
> workspace and retry once frameworks increases the requirements. Fine with
> me. It makes our lifes a little bit harder, especially for
> plasma-frameworks, but we will be able to manage that.

Fair enough. I wish the compilers would propagate faster though. :-)

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- 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-frameworks-devel/attachments/20151210/042d5970/attachment.sig>