On Saturday 29 September 2012, Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Saturday, September 29, 2012 12:12:43 André Wöbbeking wrote:
> > On Saturday 29 September 2012 11:59:04 Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> > > Am Samstag 29 September 2012, 11:48:16 schrieb André Wöbbeking:
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > 
> > > > On Saturday 29 September 2012 10:36:55 Alexander Neundorf wrote:
> > > > > I know this will cause some effort, because I guess only few
> > > > > distributions
> > > > > already come with CMake 2.8.9, but doing this once again after 2
> > > > > 1/2 years
> > > > > seems acceptable for me.
> > > > 
> > > > Do you really need 2.8.9 or would 2.8.8 from April also be
> > > > sufficient? The
> > > > older version would probably cause less trouble?!?
> > > 
> > > What trouble would it cause?
> > 
> > Well it's one more dependency to fulfill before you can build KDE.
> > Probably no problem for most people here but maybe for distributions or
> > users.
> 
> I've recently had to add support for building CMake to kdesrc-build for
> this reason. This isn't a complaint per se as the work is already done,
> but the price of closely tracking the latest stable release of a
> dependency is pretty much always that it hampers development of KDE
> itself.
> 
> 2.8.8 at least has a shot of having packages available in most distros,
> that would obviously not be as true for 2.8.10 (and 2.8.9 would be a
> question as well).
> 
> I guess the point is that if we're going to bump the dependency to
> something that isn't broadly available from distro packages then we might
> as well bump the requirement to the latest release. But hopefully we only
> make these bumps when there are clear advantages.

Yes, there have been *many* improvements to cmake between 2.6.4 and current.
This is very much worth it.

The question is how current we go.

* 2.8.8, which some distros may already have ( I think openSUSE 12.2 has 
2.8.8)
* 2.8.9 ...less likely that it's already in some distro
* 2.8.10 definitely not available in any distro when we'll require it

Alex