On 08/08/18 12:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool > <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to >> anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging >> systems and OSes that wanted to update by now, have had their chance to >> update. Those that punt until we bump the requirement, well, they will >> now have to bump. :-) >> >> "g++ requires it"? In what way? I haven't seen any issues with older >> dejagnu versions. > > I think > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=dejagnu.git;a=commit;h=5256bd82343000c76bc0e48139003f90b6184347 > >> >>> Ok to update to 1.5.3. >> >> 1.5.3 is only three years old, and not all distros carry it. This is >> rather aggressive... > > How come? > If one wants to develop on a distro that is notoriously outdated then you > have to obtain the missing pieces yourself. I wouldn't call three years > "aggressive". >
I would. IT departments don't upgrade every machine each time a new distribution comes out. They expect to install one version (plus the security updates, of course) on that machine for its lifetime. Assuming new distros are released every couple of years (quite aggressive) and that IT groups also start installing the new version immediately it is released on those new machines (extremely aggressive), you've got a 5 year life-cycle for software if you work on the basis that a machine is expected to last three years. So in practice, I think 6 years is more like that timeframe that needs to be considered for these things and even that is quite aggressive. Some machines have to run older versions of the OS simply because other software running on them *has* to use an older OS release. R.
