Kurt Schwehr <[email protected]> writes: > Greg, > > Can you explain the use case as to what keeps you on an older NetBSD but > unable to use a branch of a recent GDAL? e.g. I'm am suggesting that we > keep GDAL 2.1 and older to stay with the current requirement of supporting > C++03.
That is probably ok. I should point out that I'm coming at this as a packager - I look after a number of geo packages in pkgsrc, which supports multiple versions of multiple operating systems, causing it to run into more portability issues than packages for a particular Linux distribution. (My actual use of GDAL is so far not extensive and I can certainly run it on a newer release.) My concern is really that once there is a GDAL release that needs a newer compiler, then some other program will require that version of GDAL. As a packager, I more or less have to decide whether to update each program, balancing users getting new stuff and stability/portability. If no other packages start to depend on unreleased GDAL, and the first GDAL release requiring C++11 is a ways off, and by then enough other things require it that a system not having a C++11 compiler is totally non-viable, then this shouldn't cause problems for pkgsrc. > As for boost, my experiences are that would be far more effort support it > on many platforms than getting a working C++11 compiler. Boost is full of > really awesome code, but there be dragons and really careful consideration > should be made before requiring boost for any code that will have to be > linked against by other libraries. OK - thanks for explaining.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gdal-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/gdal-dev
