[gdal-dev] C++11 timeline

[Greg Troxel]

Kurt Schwehr <schwehr at gmail.com> writes:

> Greg,
>
> Can you explain the use case as to what keeps you on an older NetBSD but
> unable to use a branch of a recent GDAL?  e.g. I'm am suggesting that we
> keep GDAL 2.1 and older to stay with the current requirement of supporting
> C++03.

That is probably ok.  I should point out that I'm coming at this as a
packager - I look after a number of geo packages in pkgsrc, which
supports multiple versions of multiple operating systems, causing it to
run into more portability issues than packages for a particular Linux
distribution.  (My actual use of GDAL is so far not extensive and I can
certainly run it on a newer release.)

My concern is really that once there is a GDAL release that needs a
newer compiler, then some other program will require that version of
GDAL.  As a packager, I more or less have to decide whether to update
each program, balancing users getting new stuff and
stability/portability.

If no other packages start to depend on unreleased GDAL, and the first
GDAL release requiring C++11 is a ways off, and by then enough other
things require it that a system not having a C++11 compiler is totally
non-viable, then this shouldn't cause problems for pkgsrc.

> As for boost, my experiences are that would be far more effort support it
> on many platforms than getting a working C++11 compiler.  Boost is full of
> really awesome code, but there be dragons and really careful consideration
> should be made before requiring boost for any code that will have to be
> linked against by other libraries.

OK - thanks for explaining.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/gdal-dev/attachments/20170112/6a57ace2/attachment.sig>