On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 01:41:03PM +0000, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote: > On 06/13/2018 03:29 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 06:02:21AM +0000, Kornel Benko wrote: > >> Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 21:10:26 CEST schrieb Kornel Benko > >> <kor...@lyx.org>: > >>> Am Dienstag, 12. Juni 2018 21:05:10 CEST schrieb Jürgen Spitzmüller > >>> <sp...@lyx.org>: > >>>> Kornel Benko <kor...@lyx.org> schrieb am Di., > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> My feeling is that the need to compile with QT5.11 is only important for > >>>>> the future releases (e.g >= 2.4) > >>>>> > >>>> But some distros already ship Qt 5.11. I cannot compile 2.3.x here with > >>>> cmake (openSuse Tumbleweed) > >>>> > >>>> Jürgen > >>> OK, so I am corrected. > >>> > >> Scott, for 2.3.x that would mean: > >> 1.) Either cherry-pick d6b21e2 (without change of minimal cmake version), > >> or > >> 2.) cherry-pick d6b21e2 72a2f92 6343452 cb08d4a 1bf4d7b. > >> > >> You have to decide (I am in favor of 2) > > Thanks for giving the options. Let's see what Richard prefers. > > I am ignorant here. You two choose.
I do think we should support Qt 5.11 on 2.3.x because 2.3.x will probably be around for a while. But it would be nice to avoid breaking in stable the building with older CMake versions. The main question is: Is it possible to support building LyX Qt 5.11 for those who have CMake >= 3.1.0, but still allow building LyX with a previous Qt version for those who might have an older CMake? Would this be a lot of extra work? If this would be a lot of extra work, I would just say to do whatever you think is best, Kornel. By the way, is 1bf4d7b needed because of the changes from the other commits referenced? I thought it was a separate issue. Scott
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
