Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hello Wayne,

Am 23.10.19 um 18:43 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
> I thought most Linux distros packaged software in accordance with the
> preferred packaging requirements for each distro.  It used to be the
> case that distros frowned upon externally build packages because there
> was always the distinct possibly that they would break something in ways
> that were difficult to resolve.  I was not aware that this attitude has
> changed.  Too be honest, I would rather the distros build KiCad
> according to their requirements.  I would think the manpower for us to
> provide packages for every linux distro would be overwhelming.

at least my experience on this topic is that some upstream projects are
doing are really bad job on building their software for various Linux
distributions from a quality POV regarding the the packaging
requirements. And further more the feedback from the upstream projects
you will get if you point out problems is from "Thank you very much." to
"We don't care your comments".

I've seen packaged software that is breaking the distro they are
packaged for but also high quality packages which mostly could be easily
included in the distribution from the QA point.

Some upstream are scared if you asked them if they don't want put their
packages into the official distribution packaging process because they
think they are not good enough, other say they don't have the manpower
for doing this on a longer time base.

What always is helping is to get and stay in touch with the Linux
distributions because they know not only their (packaging) requirements
best. OTOH packaging is a technical thing mostly and the packagers don't
know every detail of the software they are packaging, here it is really
helpful if upstream maintainer can help. And members of the distro can
help regarding planned release time spans for their releases.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Mark Roszko]

>  I was not aware that this attitude has changed.

Well it's just the way I see it, heck I may be wrong but it isn't really an
attitude as much as upstreams wanting to continuously deliver the latest
versions without distro repo politics. In some cases, there are both distro
and official upstream releases.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:43 PM Wayne Stambaugh 
wrote:

> On 10/23/2019 10:52 AM, Mark Roszko wrote:
> > Can there ever be a statement written somewhere that says "KiCad strives
> > to support Ubuntu LTS Latest and Previous, Debian Latest, etc"?
> > Basically defining what is considered "older Linux distros" vs
> "supported".
>
> This is always going to be an issue but I think we can do a better job
> of defining which distros we support.  AFAIK, the stable version
> currently builds on all of the Linux distros listed.  We just need to be
> clear that this only applies to the current stable release and that
> development branch may not build.
>
> >
> > KiCad is unique in not building linux packages directly compared to most
> > other major pieces of software so that line has never been defined
> clearly.
>
> I thought most Linux distros packaged software in accordance with the
> preferred packaging requirements for each distro.  It used to be the
> case that distros frowned upon externally build packages because there
> was always the distinct possibly that they would break something in ways
> that were difficult to resolve.  I was not aware that this attitude has
> changed.  Too be honest, I would rather the distros build KiCad
> according to their requirements.  I would think the manpower for us to
> provide packages for every linux distro would be overwhelming.
>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:28 AM Wayne Stambaugh  > > wrote:
> >
> > One thing we don't specify on the system requirements page on the
> KiCad
> > website is whether or not this applies to the current stable release
> or
> > the nightly builds.  Since we don't specify this, I can see how users
> > would assume that it's all versions of KiCad.  Perhaps we should note
> > that this is only applicable to the current stable version and that
> > nightly builds may not support older Linux distributions due to the
> > availability of dependency library versions.  I don't think it's
> > reasonable to expect the latest development version of KiCad to
> continue
> > to support legacy Linux distros.  The current LTS release of Ubuntu
> is
> > 18.04 which supports boost version 1.65.  I think attempting to
> support
> > nightly builds on Ubuntu 16.04 is going to continue cause headaches
> as
> > time goes on.  If no one objects, I will update the system
> requirements
> > page accordingly.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > On 10/23/2019 1:39 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > > It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of
> > > Ubuntu. This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases
> out
> > > there before KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic
> :) ).
> > > Is it really worth it to actively support 3 different LTS
> releases? It
> > > doesn't sound very realistic. How many users would actually be
> > affected
> > > if KiCad 6 wouldn't be available for 16.04? 1000s? 100s? 10? And
> > if they
> > > continue with 16.04 until 2021, why would they need to switch to
> > KiCad 6
> > > before that?
> > >
> > > Eeli Kaikkonen
> > >
> > > ke 23. lokak. 2019 klo 3.05 Seth Hillbrand (s...@kipro-pcb.com
> > 
> > > >)
> kirjoitti:
> > >
> > > On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
> > >
> > >> I dug into the website history and apparently the original
> intent
> > >> should have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard
> support
> > >> ends in 2021
> > >>
> >  (
> https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782
> ).
> > >> Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost
> > >> version (that we weren't already using), we should probably
> back
> > >> out the change and also update the website with the correct
> > Ubuntu
> > >> LTS support date. It looks like that will make it so we can't
> > >> update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Hi Ian-
> > >
> > > I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the
> > sentiment is
> > > correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus
> our
> > > primary efforts where they will have the largest impact for our
> > > users.  Toward that end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon
> > > meeting) to define where that cut off should be.  We kind of
> > > arbitrary picked "vendor 

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Wayne Stambaugh]

On 10/23/2019 10:52 AM, Mark Roszko wrote:
> Can there ever be a statement written somewhere that says "KiCad strives
> to support Ubuntu LTS Latest and Previous, Debian Latest, etc"?
> Basically defining what is considered "older Linux distros" vs "supported".

This is always going to be an issue but I think we can do a better job
of defining which distros we support.  AFAIK, the stable version
currently builds on all of the Linux distros listed.  We just need to be
clear that this only applies to the current stable release and that
development branch may not build.

> 
> KiCad is unique in not building linux packages directly compared to most
> other major pieces of software so that line has never been defined clearly.

I thought most Linux distros packaged software in accordance with the
preferred packaging requirements for each distro.  It used to be the
case that distros frowned upon externally build packages because there
was always the distinct possibly that they would break something in ways
that were difficult to resolve.  I was not aware that this attitude has
changed.  Too be honest, I would rather the distros build KiCad
according to their requirements.  I would think the manpower for us to
provide packages for every linux distro would be overwhelming.

> 
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:28 AM Wayne Stambaugh  > wrote:
> 
> One thing we don't specify on the system requirements page on the KiCad
> website is whether or not this applies to the current stable release or
> the nightly builds.  Since we don't specify this, I can see how users
> would assume that it's all versions of KiCad.  Perhaps we should note
> that this is only applicable to the current stable version and that
> nightly builds may not support older Linux distributions due to the
> availability of dependency library versions.  I don't think it's
> reasonable to expect the latest development version of KiCad to continue
> to support legacy Linux distros.  The current LTS release of Ubuntu is
> 18.04 which supports boost version 1.65.  I think attempting to support
> nightly builds on Ubuntu 16.04 is going to continue cause headaches as
> time goes on.  If no one objects, I will update the system requirements
> page accordingly.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
> On 10/23/2019 1:39 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of
> > Ubuntu. This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases out
> > there before KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic :) ).
> > Is it really worth it to actively support 3 different LTS releases? It
> > doesn't sound very realistic. How many users would actually be
> affected
> > if KiCad 6 wouldn't be available for 16.04? 1000s? 100s? 10? And
> if they
> > continue with 16.04 until 2021, why would they need to switch to
> KiCad 6
> > before that?
> >
> > Eeli Kaikkonen
> >
> > ke 23. lokak. 2019 klo 3.05 Seth Hillbrand (s...@kipro-pcb.com
> 
> > >) kirjoitti:
> >
> >     On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
> >
> >>     I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent
> >>     should have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support
> >>     ends in 2021
> >>   
>  
> (https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
> >>     Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost
> >>     version (that we weren't already using), we should probably back
> >>     out the change and also update the website with the correct
> Ubuntu
> >>     LTS support date. It looks like that will make it so we can't
> >>     update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
> >>      
> >      
> >     Hi Ian-
> >      
> >     I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the
> sentiment is
> >     correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our
> >     primary efforts where they will have the largest impact for our
> >     users.  Toward that end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon
> >     meeting) to define where that cut off should be.  We kind of
> >     arbitrary picked "vendor supported" as it seemed reasonable.
> >      
> >     I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
> >     distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates
> >     for most of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system
> >     compatibility but not worry about library compatibility.  The
> Linux
> >     library system is different and holds back updates.
> >      
> >     So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what
> does it
> >     gain us?  The 

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Mark Roszko]

Can there ever be a statement written somewhere that says "KiCad strives to
support Ubuntu LTS Latest and Previous, Debian Latest, etc"?
Basically defining what is considered "older Linux distros" vs "supported".

KiCad is unique in not building linux packages directly compared to most
other major pieces of software so that line has never been defined clearly.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 9:28 AM Wayne Stambaugh 
wrote:

> One thing we don't specify on the system requirements page on the KiCad
> website is whether or not this applies to the current stable release or
> the nightly builds.  Since we don't specify this, I can see how users
> would assume that it's all versions of KiCad.  Perhaps we should note
> that this is only applicable to the current stable version and that
> nightly builds may not support older Linux distributions due to the
> availability of dependency library versions.  I don't think it's
> reasonable to expect the latest development version of KiCad to continue
> to support legacy Linux distros.  The current LTS release of Ubuntu is
> 18.04 which supports boost version 1.65.  I think attempting to support
> nightly builds on Ubuntu 16.04 is going to continue cause headaches as
> time goes on.  If no one objects, I will update the system requirements
> page accordingly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> On 10/23/2019 1:39 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of
> > Ubuntu. This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases out
> > there before KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic :) ).
> > Is it really worth it to actively support 3 different LTS releases? It
> > doesn't sound very realistic. How many users would actually be affected
> > if KiCad 6 wouldn't be available for 16.04? 1000s? 100s? 10? And if they
> > continue with 16.04 until 2021, why would they need to switch to KiCad 6
> > before that?
> >
> > Eeli Kaikkonen
> >
> > ke 23. lokak. 2019 klo 3.05 Seth Hillbrand (s...@kipro-pcb.com
> > ) kirjoitti:
> >
> > On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
> >
> >> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent
> >> should have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support
> >> ends in 2021
> >> (
> https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782
> ).
> >> Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost
> >> version (that we weren't already using), we should probably back
> >> out the change and also update the website with the correct Ubuntu
> >> LTS support date. It looks like that will make it so we can't
> >> update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ian-
> >
> > I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the sentiment is
> > correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our
> > primary efforts where they will have the largest impact for our
> > users.  Toward that end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon
> > meeting) to define where that cut off should be.  We kind of
> > arbitrary picked "vendor supported" as it seemed reasonable.
> >
> > I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
> > distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates
> > for most of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system
> > compatibility but not worry about library compatibility.  The Linux
> > library system is different and holds back updates.
> >
> > So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what does it
> > gain us?  The original bump was to allow unit tests.  During v6, I
> > would also like to utilize the UUID library from 1.60 as many of the
> > feature we plan will require GUID at least.
> >
> > This doesn't preclude using KiCad on 16.04.  It just requires
> > someone to package a boost ppa.  There are a few out there that
> > could be used as baselines for this.
> >
> > -Seth
> >
> >
> > KiCad Services Corporation KiCad Services Corporation Logo
> > Seth Hillbrand
> > *Lead Developer*
> > +1-530-302-5483‬ 
> > Davis, CA
> > www.kipro-pcb.com i...@kipro-pcb.com
> > 
> > https://twitter.com/KiProEDA 
> > https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > 
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : 

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Nick Østergaard]

+1

ons. 23. okt. 2019 15.28 skrev Wayne Stambaugh :

> One thing we don't specify on the system requirements page on the KiCad
> website is whether or not this applies to the current stable release or
> the nightly builds.  Since we don't specify this, I can see how users
> would assume that it's all versions of KiCad.  Perhaps we should note
> that this is only applicable to the current stable version and that
> nightly builds may not support older Linux distributions due to the
> availability of dependency library versions.  I don't think it's
> reasonable to expect the latest development version of KiCad to continue
> to support legacy Linux distros.  The current LTS release of Ubuntu is
> 18.04 which supports boost version 1.65.  I think attempting to support
> nightly builds on Ubuntu 16.04 is going to continue cause headaches as
> time goes on.  If no one objects, I will update the system requirements
> page accordingly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> On 10/23/2019 1:39 AM, Eeli Kaikkonen wrote:
> > It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of
> > Ubuntu. This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases out
> > there before KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic :) ).
> > Is it really worth it to actively support 3 different LTS releases? It
> > doesn't sound very realistic. How many users would actually be affected
> > if KiCad 6 wouldn't be available for 16.04? 1000s? 100s? 10? And if they
> > continue with 16.04 until 2021, why would they need to switch to KiCad 6
> > before that?
> >
> > Eeli Kaikkonen
> >
> > ke 23. lokak. 2019 klo 3.05 Seth Hillbrand (s...@kipro-pcb.com
> > ) kirjoitti:
> >
> > On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
> >
> >> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent
> >> should have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support
> >> ends in 2021
> >> (
> https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782
> ).
> >> Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost
> >> version (that we weren't already using), we should probably back
> >> out the change and also update the website with the correct Ubuntu
> >> LTS support date. It looks like that will make it so we can't
> >> update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Ian-
> >
> > I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the sentiment is
> > correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our
> > primary efforts where they will have the largest impact for our
> > users.  Toward that end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon
> > meeting) to define where that cut off should be.  We kind of
> > arbitrary picked "vendor supported" as it seemed reasonable.
> >
> > I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
> > distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates
> > for most of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system
> > compatibility but not worry about library compatibility.  The Linux
> > library system is different and holds back updates.
> >
> > So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what does it
> > gain us?  The original bump was to allow unit tests.  During v6, I
> > would also like to utilize the UUID library from 1.60 as many of the
> > feature we plan will require GUID at least.
> >
> > This doesn't preclude using KiCad on 16.04.  It just requires
> > someone to package a boost ppa.  There are a few out there that
> > could be used as baselines for this.
> >
> > -Seth
> >
> >
> > KiCad Services Corporation KiCad Services Corporation Logo
> > Seth Hillbrand
> > *Lead Developer*
> > +1-530-302-5483‬ 
> > Davis, CA
> > www.kipro-pcb.com i...@kipro-pcb.com
> > 
> > https://twitter.com/KiProEDA 
> > https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad
> > 
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > 
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Eeli Kaikkonen]

It should also be noted that 20.04 will be the next LTS release of Ubuntu.
This means that there will be two post-16.04 LTS releases out there before
KiCad 6 will be released (I'm not *that* optimistic :) ). Is it really
worth it to actively support 3 different LTS releases? It doesn't sound
very realistic. How many users would actually be affected if KiCad 6
wouldn't be available for 16.04? 1000s? 100s? 10? And if they continue with
16.04 until 2021, why would they need to switch to KiCad 6 before that?

Eeli Kaikkonen

ke 23. lokak. 2019 klo 3.05 Seth Hillbrand (s...@kipro-pcb.com) kirjoitti:

> On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
>
> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should
> have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021 (
> https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
> Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost version (that
> we weren't already using), we should probably back out the change and also
> update the website with the correct Ubuntu LTS support date. It looks like
> that will make it so we can't update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
>
>
>
> Hi Ian-
>
> I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the sentiment is
> correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our primary
> efforts where they will have the largest impact for our users.  Toward that
> end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon meeting) to define where that
> cut off should be.  We kind of arbitrary picked "vendor supported" as it
> seemed reasonable.
>
> I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
> distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates for most
> of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system compatibility but
> not worry about library compatibility.  The Linux library system is
> different and holds back updates.
>
> So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what does it gain
> us?  The original bump was to allow unit tests.  During v6, I would also
> like to utilize the UUID library from 1.60 as many of the feature we plan
> will require GUID at least.
>
> This doesn't preclude using KiCad on 16.04.  It just requires someone to
> package a boost ppa.  There are a few out there that could be used as
> baselines for this.
>
> -Seth
>
>
> KiCad Services Corporation [image: KiCad Services Corporation Logo]
> Seth Hillbrand
> *Lead Developer*
> +1-530-302-5483‬ <+12126039372>
> Davis, CA
> www.kipro-pcb.comi...@kipro-pcb.com
> https://twitter.com/KiProEDA 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Ian McInerney]

I would probably personally prefer if we kept it at 1.59 instead of
dropping it back (I hope to improve the unit testing of the tool framework,
so having the better testing library would make that easier), but we need
to be consistent with the support lifetimes we use. If 16.04 is supported
doesn't affect me personally (I run Fedora at home and 18.04 at work*).
Perhaps defining an official rule for the LTS releases like "Officially
supported until the next LTS release + 6 months" might be good (e.g. 16.04
is supported until 10/18 and 18.04 is supported until 10/20) to give users
time to upgrade but also not be constrained by libraries from >4 years ago.

-Ian

* It used to be 16.04, but then I needed to upgrade Matlab and all of a
sudden the version of the standard library that Matlab provided was newer
than the system one. When that happens, you know your OS is old.

On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 1:05 AM Seth Hillbrand  wrote:

> On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:
>
> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should
> have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021 (
> https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
> Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost version (that
> we weren't already using), we should probably back out the change and also
> update the website with the correct Ubuntu LTS support date. It looks like
> that will make it so we can't update to 1.59 until 2021 then.
>
>
>
> Hi Ian-
>
> I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the sentiment is
> correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our primary
> efforts where they will have the largest impact for our users.  Toward that
> end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon meeting) to define where that
> cut off should be.  We kind of arbitrary picked "vendor supported" as it
> seemed reasonable.
>
> I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
> distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates for most
> of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system compatibility but
> not worry about library compatibility.  The Linux library system is
> different and holds back updates.
>
> So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what does it gain
> us?  The original bump was to allow unit tests.  During v6, I would also
> like to utilize the UUID library from 1.60 as many of the feature we plan
> will require GUID at least.
>
> This doesn't preclude using KiCad on 16.04.  It just requires someone to
> package a boost ppa.  There are a few out there that could be used as
> baselines for this.
>
> -Seth
>
>
> KiCad Services Corporation [image: KiCad Services Corporation Logo]
> Seth Hillbrand
> *Lead Developer*
> +1-530-302-5483‬ <+12126039372>
> Davis, CA
> www.kipro-pcb.comi...@kipro-pcb.com
> https://twitter.com/KiProEDA 
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad
> 
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Seth Hillbrand]

On 2019-10-22 16:06, Ian McInerney wrote:

> I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should have 
> been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021 
> (https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
>  Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost version (that 
> we weren't already using), we should probably back out the change and also 
> update the website with the correct Ubuntu LTS support date. It looks like 
> that will make it so we can't update to 1.59 until 2021 then.

Hi Ian- 

I did write that.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that the sentiment is
correct.  One of the things we are attempting to do is focus our primary
efforts where they will have the largest impact for our users.  Toward
that end, we were attempting (in the post KiCon meeting) to define where
that cut off should be.  We kind of arbitrary picked "vendor supported"
as it seemed reasonable. 

I now think we should tighten that a bit more for the Linux
distributions.  Under MSW/Mac, we compile or have rolling updates for
most of our own dependencies.  This allows us to ensure system
compatibility but not worry about library compatibility.  The Linux
library system is different and holds back updates. 

So, why would we want to update the boost libraries and what does it
gain us?  The original bump was to allow unit tests.  During v6, I would
also like to utilize the UUID library from 1.60 as many of the feature
we plan will require GUID at least. 

This doesn't preclude using KiCad on 16.04.  It just requires someone to
package a boost ppa.  There are a few out there that could be used as
baselines for this. 

-Seth 

KiCad Services Corporation 

Seth Hillbrand

LEAD DEVELOPER

+1-530-302-5483‬ [1]

Davis, CA

www.kipro-pcb.com [2]i...@kipro-pcb.com

https://twitter.com/KiProEDA [3]
https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad [4]

 

Links:
--
[1] tel:+12126039372
[2] http://www.kipro-pcb.com/
[3] https://twitter.com/KiProEDA
[4] https://www.linkedin.com/company/kicad___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Ian McInerney]

I dug into the website history and apparently the original intent should
have been to support 16.04 LTS until its standard support ends in 2021 (
https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-website/commit/007fb582a316fa513778a393e2696d17c0031cea#r33487782).
Since we haven't actually used any code from the newer Boost version (that
we weren't already using), we should probably back out the change and also
update the website with the correct Ubuntu LTS support date. It looks like
that will make it so we can't update to 1.59 until 2021 then.

-Ian

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:35 PM Wayne Stambaugh 
wrote:

> According to Ubuntu[1], 16.04 looks like it will continue to receive
> maintenance updates until April 2021.  It looks like we got that wrong.
>  The boost version in 16.04 is 1.58.  There is no newer version of boost
> in the back ports repo so we have a decision to make.  Drop support for
> Ubuntu 16.04 nightly builds or drop the minimum boost version to 1.58.
> I'm fine with dropping nightly build support for Ubuntu 16.04.  I don't
> have a vested interest one way or another.  The stable version of KiCad
> will always build with 16.04.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> On 10/21/19 3:36 PM, Diego Herranz wrote:
> > I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when
> > we stop supporting them?
> > I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully
> > clear) in which case that date is wrong.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Diego
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney  > > wrote:
> >
> > The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had
> > Boost 1.59 were the dates given
> > here: http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On
> > that page, it says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
> >
> > -Ian
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking
> > [1] I've just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04
> > (Xenial) out.
> > Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
> >
> > Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a
> > deliberate decision? Is there anything that can be done?
> > I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for
> > some time but didn't really have the need while it is supported
> > (everything stable and working very well).
> > I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Diego
> >
> > [1]
> https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
> > [2]
> >
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh
> > mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> > > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
> > >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum
> > Boost version to
> > >>> 1.59?
> > >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal
> > version for Boost.
> > >>
> > >
> > > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I
> > think 1.59 is a
> > > pretty safe bet at this point for the development
> > version.  For the 5.1
> > > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are
> > planning to
> > > back port any of the testing features which were the
> > primary reason for
> > > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon
> > as I get a
> > > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much
> grief.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > >
> > > Wayne
> > >
> >
> > I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any
> > major headaches,
> > I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost
> > stuff, please
> > let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't
> > have to back
> > out a bunch of changes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > 
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> > 

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Diego Herranz]

A man can dream xD

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 23:15, Jon Evans  wrote:

>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Diego Herranz <
> diegoherr...@diegoherranz.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be
>> officially supported. Just something to have in mind.
>>
>
> I love your optimism :)
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Jon Evans]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 5:53 PM Diego Herranz 
wrote:

>
> It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be officially
> supported. Just something to have in mind.
>

I love your optimism :)
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Diego Herranz]

I understand and that'll mean I'll have to move on, which in my case, it's
not a big issue. I was waiting until 20.04 LTS, though :)

>> The stable version of KiCad will always build with 16.04.

It looks like by the time 6.0 is out, Ubuntu 16.04 may still be officially
supported. Just something to have in mind.

Cheers,
Diego

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019, 21:11 Nick Østergaard,  wrote:

> You can still run 5.1 on 16.04. If you want bleeding edge, don't lock
> yourself down with a "stable" system.
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Diego Herranz
>  wrote:
> >
> > I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when
> we stop supporting them?
> > I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully
> clear) in which case that date is wrong.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Diego
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had Boost
> 1.59 were the dates given here:
> http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On that page,
> it says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
> >>
> >> -Ian
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz <
> diegoherr...@diegoherranz.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1]
> I've just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
> >>> Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
> >>>
> >>> Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate
> decision? Is there anything that can be done?
> >>> I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for some time
> but didn't really have the need while it is supported (everything stable
> and working very well).
> >>> I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Diego
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
> >>> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh 
> wrote:
> 
>  10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>  > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>  >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost
> version to
>  >>> 1.59?
>  >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for
> Boost.
>  >>
>  >
>  > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59
> is a
>  > pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the
> 5.1
>  > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
>  > back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason
> for
>  > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
>  > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
>  >
>  > Cheers,
>  >
>  > Wayne
>  >
> 
>  I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major
> headaches,
>  I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff,
> please
>  let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to
> back
>  out a bunch of changes.
> 
>  Cheers,
> 
>  Wayne
> 
>  ___
>  Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>  Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>  Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>  More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >>>
> >>> ___
> >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> >>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Wayne Stambaugh]

According to Ubuntu[1], 16.04 looks like it will continue to receive
maintenance updates until April 2021.  It looks like we got that wrong.
 The boost version in 16.04 is 1.58.  There is no newer version of boost
in the back ports repo so we have a decision to make.  Drop support for
Ubuntu 16.04 nightly builds or drop the minimum boost version to 1.58.
I'm fine with dropping nightly build support for Ubuntu 16.04.  I don't
have a vested interest one way or another.  The stable version of KiCad
will always build with 16.04.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 10/21/19 3:36 PM, Diego Herranz wrote:
> I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when
> we stop supporting them?
> I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully
> clear) in which case that date is wrong.
> 
> Thanks,
> Diego
> 
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney  > wrote:
> 
> The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had
> Boost 1.59 were the dates given
> here: http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On
> that page, it says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
> 
> -Ian
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz
>  > wrote:
> 
> I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking
> [1] I've just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04
> (Xenial) out.
> Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
> 
> Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a
> deliberate decision? Is there anything that can be done?
> I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for
> some time but didn't really have the need while it is supported
> (everything stable and working very well).
> I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
> 
> Cheers,
> Diego
> 
> [1] 
> https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
> 
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh
> mailto:stambau...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
> >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum
> Boost version to
> >>> 1.59?
> >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal
> version for Boost.
> >>
> >
> > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I
> think 1.59 is a
> > pretty safe bet at this point for the development
> version.  For the 5.1
> > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are
> planning to
> > back port any of the testing features which were the
> primary reason for
> > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon
> as I get a
> > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> 
> I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any
> major headaches,
> I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost
> stuff, please
> let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't
> have to back
> out a bunch of changes.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> 
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to     : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> 
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Nick Østergaard]

You can still run 5.1 on 16.04. If you want bleeding edge, don't lock
yourself down with a "stable" system.

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 21:37, Diego Herranz
 wrote:
>
> I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when we 
> stop supporting them?
> I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully clear) 
> in which case that date is wrong.
>
> Thanks,
> Diego
>
> On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney  wrote:
>>
>> The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had Boost 1.59 
>> were the dates given here: 
>> http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On that page, it 
>> says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
>>
>> -Ian
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1] I've 
>>> just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
>>> Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
>>>
>>> Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate decision? 
>>> Is there anything that can be done?
>>> I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for some time but 
>>> didn't really have the need while it is supported (everything stable and 
>>> working very well).
>>> I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Diego
>>>
>>> [1] https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
>>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh  wrote:

 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
 > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
 >> Hi,
 >>
 >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
 >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
 >>> 1.59?
 >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
 >>
 >
 > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
 > pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
 > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
 > back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
 > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
 > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
 >
 > Cheers,
 >
 > Wayne
 >

 I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major headaches,
 I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff, please
 let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to back
 out a bunch of changes.

 Cheers,

 Wayne

 ___
 Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
 Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Diego Herranz]

I see. Are those dates when the respective OS support finishes or when we
stop supporting them?
I was under the impression it is the former (although it is not fully
clear) in which case that date is wrong.

Thanks,
Diego

On Mon, 21 Oct 2019 at 20:16, Ian McInerney 
wrote:

> The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had Boost
> 1.59 were the dates given here:
> http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On that page,
> it says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.
>
> -Ian
>
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz <
> diegoherr...@diegoherranz.com> wrote:
>
>> I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1] I've
>> just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
>> Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
>>
>> Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate
>> decision? Is there anything that can be done?
>> I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for some time
>> but didn't really have the need while it is supported (everything stable
>> and working very well).
>> I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Diego
>>
>> [1] https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
>> [2]
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
>>
>> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>>> >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>>> >>> 1.59?
>>> >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for
>>> Boost.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
>>> > pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
>>> > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
>>> > back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
>>> > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
>>> > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
>>> >
>>> > Cheers,
>>> >
>>> > Wayne
>>> >
>>>
>>> I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major headaches,
>>> I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff, please
>>> let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to back
>>> out a bunch of changes.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Ian McInerney]

The listing I used when looking at whether our supported OS's had Boost
1.59 were the dates given here:
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/#_gnulinux. On that page, it
says that our support for 16.04 ended in April.

-Ian

On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 8:03 PM Diego Herranz 
wrote:

> I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1] I've
> just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
> Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].
>
> Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate
> decision? Is there anything that can be done?
> I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for some time but
> didn't really have the need while it is supported (everything stable and
> working very well).
> I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.
>
> Cheers,
> Diego
>
> [1] https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions
>
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh  wrote:
>
>> 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>> >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>> >>> 1.59?
>> >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for
>> Boost.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
>> > pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
>> > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
>> > back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
>> > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
>> > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> >
>> > Wayne
>> >
>>
>> I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major headaches,
>> I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff, please
>> let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to back
>> out a bunch of changes.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Diego Herranz]

I wasn't getting any nightly package update lately and checking [1] I've
just noticed this boost bump has left Ubuntu 16.04 (Xenial) out.
Ubuntu 16.04 will be supported until April 2021 [2].

Was this overlooked when checking distros? Or was it a deliberate decision?
Is there anything that can be done?
I've been planning to move to a newer Ubuntu LTS release for some time but
didn't really have the need while it is supported (everything stable and
working very well).
I guess there may be more people in a situation similar to mine.

Cheers,
Diego

[1] https://launchpad.net/~js-reynaud/+archive/ubuntu/kicad-dev-nightly
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_version_history#Table_of_versions

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 19:59, Wayne Stambaugh  wrote:

> 10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> > On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
> >>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
> >>> 1.59?
> >> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
> >>
> >
> > The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
> > pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
> > branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
> > back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
> > the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
> > chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
>
> I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major headaches,
> I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff, please
> let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to back
> out a bunch of changes.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Wayne Stambaugh]

10/2/2019 8:34 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>>> 1.59?
>> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
>>
> 
> The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
> pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
> branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
> back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
> the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
> chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 

I bumped the Boost version to 1.59.  If this causes any major headaches,
I can always revert it.  Before we go using any new Boost stuff, please
let the dust settle on the version bump change so we don't have to back
out a bunch of changes.

Cheers,

Wayne

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Wayne Stambaugh]

On 9/27/19 12:20 AM, Carsten Schoenert wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
>> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
>> 1.59?
> I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.
> 

The boost version used in Debian old stable is 1.62.  I think 1.59 is a
pretty safe bet at this point for the development version.  For the 5.1
branch, we should keep the current version unless we are planning to
back port any of the testing features which were the primary reason for
the version bump request.  I will make the change as soon as I get a
chance, we can always revert it if it causes too much grief.

Cheers,

Wayne

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hi,

Am 26.09.19 um 22:26 schrieb Ian McInerney:
> Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to
> 1.59?
I still see no technical need to increase the minimal version for Boost.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Ian McInerney]

Ping. Is there any opposition to bumping the minimum Boost version to 1.59?

-Ian

On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 10:05 PM Blair Bonnett 
wrote:

>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 14:10, Wayne Stambaugh 
> wrote:
> >
> > What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?
>
> Absolutely nothing; the suggestion of 1.62 was merely a personal opinion.
>
> > If this is the version that has the testing features that you need and
> presumably
> > all later versions, then this should suffice.  I would prefer that we
> maximize
> > the number of supported distros whenever possible.
>
> Sure! A quick grep says the only current compile-time checks for Boost
> versions are 1.59 (qa), 1.64 (also qa) and 1.68 (3D viewer cache). Since
> 1.64 is a no-go at this stage, 1.59 would be a good step forward.
>
> (Sorry for the delay in response, I had an unexpected lack of internet
> access for a couple of days).
>
> Cheers
> Blair
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Blair Bonnett]

On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 14:10, Wayne Stambaugh  wrote:
>
> What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?

Absolutely nothing; the suggestion of 1.62 was merely a personal opinion.

> If this is the version that has the testing features that you need and
presumably
> all later versions, then this should suffice.  I would prefer that we
maximize
> the number of supported distros whenever possible.

Sure! A quick grep says the only current compile-time checks for Boost
versions are 1.59 (qa), 1.64 (also qa) and 1.68 (3D viewer cache). Since
1.64 is a no-go at this stage, 1.59 would be a good step forward.

(Sorry for the delay in response, I had an unexpected lack of internet
access for a couple of days).

Cheers
Blair
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Carsten Schoenert]

Hi,

Am 29.08.19 um 14:09 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
> What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?  If this is
> the version that has the testing features that you need and presumably
> all later versions, then this should suffice.  I would prefer that we
> maximize the number of supported distros whenever possible.

fully agreed!
Please don't bump versions only because you can do this. Check always if
you need some new shiny function that is resulting in a version bump.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Wayne Stambaugh]

What's wrong with setting the minimum boost version to 1.59?  If this is
the version that has the testing features that you need and presumably
all later versions, then this should suffice.  I would prefer that we
maximize the number of supported distros whenever possible.

Cheers,

Wayne

On 8/28/19 2:49 PM, Blair Bonnett wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I've recently been playing with some features I'd like to add to KiCad
> (will be able to submit a patch soon I hope). As part of this, I'm
> adding some unit tests. I see that unit_test_utils.h within the qa has a
> number of macros working around Boost pre-1.59, and there's some
> features introduced in Boost 1.59 which would make my testing a lot cleaner.
> 
> Currently, the main CMakeLists.txt specifies a minimum version of 1.54
> for Boost. This was released on 1 July 2013 [1]; incidentally, this was
> 18 months before the formal release of C++14 (approved August 2014,
> released December 2014) which is mandated in CMakeLists.
> 
> I've done a quick survey of the versions of Boost in some of the larger
> Linux distributions, with the results as follows:
> 
> Arch: 1.69 [2]
> Debian stable: 1.67 [3]
> Debian oldstable: 1.62 [4]
> Fedora 30 and 31: 1.69 [5]
> openSUSE: 1.69 [6]
> Ubuntu 19.04: 1.67 [7]
> Ubuntu 18.04 LTS: 1.65 [8]
> Linux Mint 19.2: based on Ubuntu 18.04, so 1.65
> 
> It's worth noting that Debian oldstable has KiCad 4.0.5 and Ubuntu 18.04
> LTS has KiCad 4.0.7, so I'd say there is no need to worry about
> targeting them for KiCad 6. This presumably also means Linux Mint is
> using 4.0.7 and is also not of concern.
> 
> Based on this, from a Linux point-of-view I'd say its fairly safe to
> bring the minimum Boost requirement up to 1.67 for KiCad 6. However, I'm
> not sure what the Mac and Windows builders use -- they may require a
> lower version. There may also be other reasons I've missed to keep an
> older version as the minimum requirement.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Blair
> 
> [1] https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_54_0.html
> [2]: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/boost/
> [3] https://packages.debian.org/buster/libboost-all-dev
> [4] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libboost-all-dev
> [5] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/boost
> [6]: https://software.opensuse.org/package/boost-base
> [7] https://packages.ubuntu.com/disco/libboost-all-dev
> [8] https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/libboost-all-dev
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Nick Østergaard]

The windows build box for the stable and nightly builds use boost 1.68.

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:18, Blair Bonnett  wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Ian McInerney  wrote:
> >
> > Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be 
> > supported by KiCad until 2023 
> > (http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/).
>
> Ah, good point. I was only considering the official repos (KiCad 4) rather 
> than PPAs/people compiling their own.
>
> > If anything, it might make sense to go to 1.59 now, and re-evaluate it 
> > farther in the v6 development (such as when the Python minimum version is 
> > also re-evaluated).
>
> Based on that table, I'd say 1.62 is the first step -- that supports Debian 
> Stretch (oldstable, supported until 2020 sometime). IMHO it makes sense to 
> update as far as possible soon in the development cycle to allow more time to 
> make use of new features / remove conditionally compiled code etc.
>
> - Blair
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Blair Bonnett]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Ian McInerney 
wrote:
>
> Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be
supported by KiCad until 2023 (
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/).

Ah, good point. I was only considering the official repos (KiCad 4) rather
than PPAs/people compiling their own.

> If anything, it might make sense to go to 1.59 now, and re-evaluate it
farther in the v6 development (such as when the Python minimum version is
also re-evaluated).

Based on that table, I'd say 1.62 is the first step -- that supports Debian
Stretch (oldstable, supported until 2020 sometime). IMHO it makes sense to
update as far as possible soon in the development cycle to allow more time
to make use of new features / remove conditionally compiled code etc.

- Blair
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Minimum Boost version

[Ian McInerney]

Going up to 1.67 won't be possible, since 18.04 is estimated to be
supported by KiCad until 2023 (
http://kicad-pcb.org/help/system-requirements/). If anything, it might make
sense to go to 1.59 now, and re-evaluate it farther in the v6 development
(such as when the Python minimum version is also re-evaluated).

-Ian

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:49 PM Blair Bonnett 
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've recently been playing with some features I'd like to add to KiCad
> (will be able to submit a patch soon I hope). As part of this, I'm adding
> some unit tests. I see that unit_test_utils.h within the qa has a number of
> macros working around Boost pre-1.59, and there's some features introduced
> in Boost 1.59 which would make my testing a lot cleaner.
>
> Currently, the main CMakeLists.txt specifies a minimum version of 1.54 for
> Boost. This was released on 1 July 2013 [1]; incidentally, this was 18
> months before the formal release of C++14 (approved August 2014, released
> December 2014) which is mandated in CMakeLists.
>
> I've done a quick survey of the versions of Boost in some of the larger
> Linux distributions, with the results as follows:
>
> Arch: 1.69 [2]
> Debian stable: 1.67 [3]
> Debian oldstable: 1.62 [4]
> Fedora 30 and 31: 1.69 [5]
> openSUSE: 1.69 [6]
> Ubuntu 19.04: 1.67 [7]
> Ubuntu 18.04 LTS: 1.65 [8]
> Linux Mint 19.2: based on Ubuntu 18.04, so 1.65
>
> It's worth noting that Debian oldstable has KiCad 4.0.5 and Ubuntu 18.04
> LTS has KiCad 4.0.7, so I'd say there is no need to worry about targeting
> them for KiCad 6. This presumably also means Linux Mint is using 4.0.7 and
> is also not of concern.
>
> Based on this, from a Linux point-of-view I'd say its fairly safe to bring
> the minimum Boost requirement up to 1.67 for KiCad 6. However, I'm not sure
> what the Mac and Windows builders use -- they may require a lower version.
> There may also be other reasons I've missed to keep an older version as the
> minimum requirement.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Blair
>
> [1] https://www.boost.org/users/history/version_1_54_0.html
> [2]: https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/boost/
> [3] https://packages.debian.org/buster/libboost-all-dev
> [4] https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libboost-all-dev
> [5] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/boost
> [6]: https://software.opensuse.org/package/boost-base
> [7] https://packages.ubuntu.com/disco/libboost-all-dev
> [8] https://packages.ubuntu.com/bionic/libboost-all-dev
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp