Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:31:20 +0000
Mark Morgan Lloyd <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
Quite frankly I feel that the Lazarus version numbering is progressing
faster than is reasonable, and that it would be highly desirable to have
a "Long Term Support" v2.0.x or even 3.0.x which could be presented to
people outside the project as a robust version to use with FPC 3.0.x.
Do you think version is progressing too fast or do you
think it should progress faster towards 2.0?
[...]
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-0.9.24+2.2.4
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-0.9.26+2.2.4
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-0.9.28+2.4.0
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-0.9.30+2.4.4
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.0.0+2.4.4
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.0.0+2.6.0
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.0.8+2.6.2
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.0.14+2.6.4
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.2.6+2.6.4
Yes.
! /usr/local/bin/lazarus-1.4.2+3.0.0
1.4.2 used FPC 2.6.4.
1.6 will be the first release with FPC 3.0.
Those are tested combinations. 1.4.2 (which was the latest 1.4.x when I
did the work) works reliably with 3.0.0, and is the first workable
combination if you want to avoid the trunk/development revisions.
I'm prepared to say to people "you're going to have to build something
from source, but it's no big deal". I'm not prepared to say to them
"you're going to have to build from bleeding-edge sources, and there's a
risk they won't work".
--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk
[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
