Am 24.10.2015 um 07:11 schrieb Peter Kümmel <syntheti...@gmx.net>: > Am 23.10.2015 um 21:27 schrieb Stephan Witt: >>> See <http://mid.gmane.org/326d2a33-d65f-488d-9bc3-5331535a4...@lyx.org> >>> and subsequent messages. The only concrete example was Jean-Marc's OSX >>> 10.7 computer, although in this case there is a straightfoward fix >>> according to Google. >> >> Note, I've to pass --disable-cxx11 to configure to build LyX on >> my system. LyX 2.1.x an Mac is available for systems back to OS 10.6 >> for LyX 2.2.0 there isn't any statement for which systems it should >> be available. >> >> Stephan > > The compiler version depends on the developer system/Xcode version not the > Mac OS target version.
Yes, that's the theory. But I have an 10.6 system to build LyX for i386 on 10.5 because this isn't possible anymore with newer Qt on 10.8. Sorry, I cannot recall the details ATM. > > Overall "Mac users" are used to see new features not supported on older > systems. So I see no problem to have 2.2 running on more recent OS version. There is a difference between a new feature not supported on old systems and an application not supported anymore. I don't have a problem with not supporting any old system either. It should be written somewhere in the RELEASE notes if LyX 2.2 is not available for 10.5 anymore, IMO. Stephan > > Peter > >> >>> Another argument in favour of keeping C++98 seemed to be that >>> backporting from C++11 to C++98 is supposed to be effortless (which >>> makes me wonder why C++11 was at all invented). However the discussion >>> about allowing Unicode string literals clearly showed the contrary: >>> <http://mid.gmane.org/mv8skg$jb7$1...@ger.gmane.org>. >>> >>> The overall discussion about C++11 was rather unconvincing, and as a >>> consequence I have already decided to use C++11 features without >>> restraint starting from 2.3, and not to make a single non-trivial effort >>> at possible backports into 2.2 of any of my patches. One cannot claim >>> one day that LyX is short in developer time, and another day that >>> increasing backporting efforts is without consequences. This makes me >>> hope that this 2.2 version will be short-lived (however impatient I am >>> to see it out). >>> >>> >>> >>> Guillaume
