>>>>> "Abdelrazak" == Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Abdelrazak> You guys thinks that LyX is still portable to some old Abdelrazak> Unix, I think you should prove your affirmation. I would Abdelrazak> say that LyX is not portable to a platform that don't Abdelrazak> support advanced C++. I would go as far as to say that LyX Abdelrazak> portability is set by the portability of gcc >= 3.3 and Abdelrazak> boost. It is not that much thanks to autotools as shown by Abdelrazak> my congig.h analysis. It may have been in the past but it Abdelrazak> is not anymore thanks to the wonderful cleanup of the code Abdelrazak> you have done up until now. Simple experiment: fantomas: cd src/lyx/www-user/announce/ fantomas: grep -i compilation 1_3_* 1_3_1.txt:- fix compilation on OpenBSD 1_3_3.txt:- fix compilation on HP-UX 11.x 1_3_3.txt:- fix compilation with new development versions of xforms 1_3_3.txt:- fix compilation with AikSaurus 1.0 1_3_4.txt:- compilation fixes for MacOSX 1_3_5.txt:- Fix compilation for OpenBSD. 1_3_5.txt:- Fix compilation with SGI C++ compiler. 1_3_5.txt:- Fix compilation with gcc 3.4. 1_3_7.txt:- Fix compilation with gcc 2.95 under OSX 10.4. This is useful because 1_3_7.txt:- Fix compilation with Solaris/x86 (bug 992). 1_3_7.txt:- Enable compilation of LyX on DragonFly BSD. This does mean that there are systems out there that are not linux (doh!). On these systems things are different. It is not a matter to support ancient systems. But portability is an art and goes beyond ``it works on the two machines I have at home''. Abdelrazak> No it's not because it's contents depends on the platform. Abdelrazak> There is some boost library that gives you the same Abdelrazak> information AFAIK, don't remember the name. That's what I Abdelrazak> call _portable_. OK, that would have been a more acceptable patch. But what we were discussing is what you actually sent. JMarc
