search

flathub / org.openclonk.OpenClonk

https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.openclonk.OpenClonk
0 stars 2 forks source link

Update runtime to 5.15-21.08 #7

Closed travier closed 2 years ago

travier commented 2 years ago

The 5.15 version of the KDE Runtime is based on the 20.08 version of the Freedesktop Runtime and will stay as-is to keep compatibility. The 5.15-21.08 version of the KDE Runtime is based on the 21.08 Freedesktop one. The Qt/KDE Libraries are mostyl similar between the two runtimes.

This change is mostly maintenance to keep the base runtime updated.

flathubbot commented 2 years ago

Started test build 69027

flathubbot commented 2 years ago

Build 69027 failed

jcaesar commented 2 years ago

Well, that's a weird one. Did the default C++ version change, or so?

travier commented 2 years ago

This might be the case. This moves the Freedesktop Runtime base from 20.08 to 21.08 thus this might be the source of the build failures.

jcaesar commented 2 years ago

Guess the limits header used to be transitively included, and now it's not anymore. Oh well.

hfiguiere commented 2 years ago

the C++ documentation is clear about what to include. It was a bug.

jcaesar commented 2 years ago

Oh, absolutely. Still, is it necessary to update the gcc version?

hfiguiere commented 2 years ago

it's part of the SDK. Yes. The compiler improve each time.

flathubbot commented 2 years ago

Started test build 70262

flathubbot commented 2 years ago

Build 70262 successful To test this build, install it from the testing repository:

flatpak install --user https://dl.flathub.org/build-repo/68112/org.openclonk.OpenClonk.flatpakref
travier commented 2 years ago

Can you submit this patch upstream? Thanks for figuring it out!

jcaesar commented 2 years ago

The compiler improve each time.

Improve in what? Better error/warning messages? OC isn't actively developed, nobody will read them. Higher speed? We're likely talking about a few percent, and OC was well playable on weak hardware even years ago. No point. I'm also worried they'll get better at optimizing and turn more UB in the code into actual runtime bugs. :/

It's really just maintenance effort (well, small in this case) for no benefit I can see.

it's part of the SDK.

That doesn't actually answer my question. I wonder. Does it have to be? And why only one version?

Can you submit this patch upstream?

I have write access, yes. But I doubt there will be another release. I might do it after I figure out what header used to include limits.

travier commented 2 years ago

Thanks for the investigation and the fix here and sorry for the trouble. You're good for at least full year before we make another update! 🙂

jcaesar commented 2 years ago

Seems like it's already fixed on HEAD.