Re: RFC: Minimum meson version for xserver 20
On 3/31/20 8:42 AM, Matt Turner wrote: On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:24 AM Adam Jackson wrote: Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a consistent way. After a bunch of weeping and gnashing of teeth, I bumped Wayland's dependency to meson >= 0.52.1, which is what is available in buster backports. I don't see a reason to pick anything older than that. Not that it matters for Wayland, but for X11 packages - I'm currently shipping Meson 0.51.2 in Solaris, but working now to upgrade to 0.54.0. I won't object to requiring anything up to 0.54.0 since any new X11 package release with such a requirement should come in after the meson upgrade. -- -Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com Oracle Solaris Engineering - https://blogs.oracle.com/alanc ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: RFC: Minimum meson version for xserver 20
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:24 AM Adam Jackson wrote: > > Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump > to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If > not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which > addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a > consistent way. After a bunch of weeping and gnashing of teeth, I bumped Wayland's dependency to meson >= 0.52.1, which is what is available in buster backports. I don't see a reason to pick anything older than that. ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: RFC: Minimum meson version for xserver 20
On 30.3.2020 18.42, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On 2020-03-30 5:23 p.m., Adam Jackson wrote: >> Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump >> to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If >> not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which >> addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a >> consistent way. > > Even stock Debian stable has 0.49.2 (backports has 0.52.1), so 0.49 > seems fair game. Yup, and Ubuntu 20.04 will ship with (at least) 0.53.2 so as long as that's fresh enough for backports in the next two years, I'm happy. -- t ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
Re: RFC: Minimum meson version for xserver 20
On 2020-03-30 5:23 p.m., Adam Jackson wrote: > Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump > to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If > not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which > addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a > consistent way. Even stock Debian stable has 0.49.2 (backports has 0.52.1), so 0.49 seems fair game. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | https://redhat.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
RFC: Minimum meson version for xserver 20
Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a consistent way. - ajax ___ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: https://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
