I also think we should maintain some backward compatibility, perhaps replace the word "support latest e.g. ubuntu" with "support versions of ubuntu from last XX years". We may require some new dependenciews here and there, but we don't want users to have to update their entire system every six months (or even a year) in order to use IMP. Barak
On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Ben Webb ben@salilab.org wrote:
> On 07/30/2012 04:13 PM, Daniel Russel wrote: > >> As Ben just had to patch something to handle a very old version of >> boost >> > > Well, I didn't have to, but it seemed easy enough to fix rather than > having to drop support for RHEL 5. > > > So far we have more or less stuck with the versions of the dependencies, >> rather than the policy (eg, I don't think any of those use boost 1.33 >> but we still require that we support it). It seems to me it might make >> sense to keep these as the live requirements, that is, drop old versions >> as they become older than the versions in the list above. >> > > Sure, I don't think it unreasonable to require RHEL 6 rather than 5 now. > > > I think the main immediate effect would be to update to boost 1.40, and >> gcc 4.4 >> > > Are you suggesting that users have to have the latest release of OS X on > Mac? Right now things will build all the way back to 10.4 - although I'm > not suggesting we need to support that forever - but I think it > unreasonable to expect everyone to use Mountain Lion, for example. Snow > Leopard is still at gcc 4.2, and a lot of people (even in the Sali lab) > still use that.
> > Ben > -- > ben@salilab.org http://salilab.org/~ben/ > "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data." > - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle > ______________________________**_________________ > IMP-dev mailing list > IMP-dev@salilab.org > https://salilab.org/mailman/**listinfo/imp-devhttps://salilab.org/mailman/listinfo/imp-dev >