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