In no way was I implying that you were arbitrarily bumping the
requirement... at the moment there is a need since there is no
conditional code (if it's even doable for this issue). :) I knew what
you did and why you did it, I'm sorry if I didn't communicate that
well in my previous message (my brain is not fully awake yet and I'm
not a coffee person).
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM, Alex Valavanis
> Hi Josh,
> The cairo version bump was just supposed to reflect the fact that
> builds will currently fail with cairo < 1.10. I didn't intend it to
> be a declaration that we no longer support cairo < 1.10. If we are
> willing to provide code alternatives for cairo 1.8, then we can reduce
> the version for pkg-config.
> On 19 July 2011 18:15, Josh Andler <scislac@...> wrote:
>> Hey All,
>> Okay, so my intentions with this thread was to find out more about our
>> contributors. Partially just to find out what people are using and
>> have available, as well as to see if we could possibly do a one-time
>> bump on required versions of libraries we link against. For me, I am
>> asking for this across the board (to what Ubuntu 10.10 shipped with)
>> so that we can use some newer gtk features as well (in addition to the
>> cairo need).
>> We do have a couple people that responded who are still running Lucid
>> (10.04) and that's where we have hit the cairo issue... basically we
>> need a feature that was shipped with a later version of cairo. I see
>> that Alex went ahead and bumped the cairo requirement in trunk, which
>> we can revert if necessary, but I'm more interested in finding out if
>> people will really protest this one-time early lib version bump.
>> For the record, the replaced renderer and the fact that we're in a
>> refactoring development cycle are the only things that make the early
>> bump an option in my view. I would never ask this of people during any
>> normal development cycle, so please don't be concerned that this will
>> be a trend by any means.
>> So, anyone against this or in favor of it?
>> Note: This will have zero impact on windows devs since we supply the
>> libs and minimal impact on OSX (it seems) since the macports stuff
>> appears to be pretty up-to-date.
>> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 1:36 AM, ~suv <suv-sf@...> wrote:
>>> On 5/7/11 23:54, Josh Andler wrote:
>>>> On the Mac side, what are your upgrade habits?
>>> Not a typical Mac user here:
>>> Still using Mac OS X Leopard 10.5 (32bit) on my late 2008 MacBookPro
>>> (Intel), even though the hardware would have supported the upgrade to
>>> Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard (64bit).
>>> I don't have plans to migrate to a new version of the OS, until I manage
>>> to buy me a second computer. The current one is kept up-to-date with
>>> security and system updates provided by Apple (sometimes I might wait a
>>> few weeks with installing the update after it has been pushed, depending
>>> on the urgency of the fixed issues).
>>> MacPorts, which provides most of the dependencies required for
>>> self-compiled ported software, gets updated about every other week, or
>>> whenever a newer version of an important library is available.
>> Magic Quadrant for Content-Aware Data Loss Prevention
>> Research study explores the data loss prevention market. Includes in-depth
>> analysis on the changes within the DLP market, and the criteria used to
>> evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these DLP solutions.
>> Inkscape-devel mailing list