Re: [Monotone-devel] C++11

[Stephen Leake]

Markus Wanner <address@hidden> writes:

>   NetBSD 5.1                  shipping gcc 3.3
>   OpenBSD 5.5                 shipping gcc 4.2
>   Debian squeeze (oldstable): shipping gcc 4.4
>   Ubuntu 10.04 LTS (lucid):   shipping gcc 4.4
>   RHEL 6:                     shipping gcc 4.4
>   CentOS 6.5:                 shipping gcc 4.4
>   FreeBSD 9.0                 shipping gcc 4.4
>   Fedora 14:                  shipping gcc 4.5
>   OpenSuse 11.4               shipping gcc 4.5
>   Slackware 13.37             shipping gcc 4.5
>
> These (and newer) should be fine:
>
>   Ubuntu LTS 12.04 (precise): shipping 4.4 - 4.8
>   Debian stable (wheezy):     shipping 4.6 and 4.8
>   Fedora 15:                  shipping gcc 4.6
>   FreeBSD 9.2                 shipping gcc 4.6
>   OpenSuse 12.1:              shipping gcc 4.6
>   Slackware 14.0              shipping gcc 4.7
>   NetBSD 6.1                  shipping gcc 4.8
>   RHEL 7                      shipping gcc 4.8 (?)

Thanks for the list.

You left out Windows:

msys2 mingw64           4.9
cygwin 64 bit           4.8

> Out of these, RHEL 6 hurts the most, IMO. 

Yes. That's the required OS for my day job, which is where I use mtn the
most. And I want to stay with mtn head, so I can add new conflict
resolutions etc :).

We also have to run RHEL 5 for a couple of version-frozen projects. But
those don't need the latest monotone, just netsync compatibility.

> However, there's the RedHat Developer Toolset, shipping gcc 4.7. 

I was not aware of that, nor of RHEL 7.

In addition, we use AdaCore tools, which provide gcc 4.7. I'll
try testing with that.

> For other old distributions still in use, you're likely to find a
> newer gcc as well, I think.

Right. Or just use an older monotone; as long as we preserve netsync
compatibility, using an older monotone is not a serious problem. People
using old systems have to accept old tools.

We could provide 1.1 source tarball on our website for a while, to allow
compiling on non-C++-11 systems.

We don't have the manpower to maintain two distributions.

We don't want to discourage interested contributors by saying "you can't
use the best tool for the job" (which would actually be Ada 2012, not
C++ 11, but let's not go there :).

-- 
-- Stephe