Re: CMake 4
Roland Hughes via Foxgui-users <[email protected]> Fri, 2 Jan 2026 12:12:06 -0600
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lib.fox-toolkit.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--===============3749596683665973142==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="------------mWYV3q0GUVVYl07pj2TH0aYb"
Content-Language: en-US
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------mWYV3q0GUVVYl07pj2TH0aYb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 1/2/2026 11:05 AM, Sander Jansen wrote:
> I still don't get it. Assuming you have 3.27, why can't you set the
> minimum required version in FOX to 3.23?
>
> > But, if you want to still support Ubuntu 18.04 (Some development
> locked there) your min needs to be 3.10
>
> I don't see the point. If you insist on running a 7 year old OS for
> stability reasons, why would you want the latest version of a library.
> Just download 1.6 or whatever was released 7 years ago. Also there
> seems to be some sort of double standard, YES on downloading the
> bleeding edge of FOX and NO on downloading the latest cmake.
Well, this goes back to my original chiming in and the fact I live in a
different world.
*What is the oldest OS you are looking to support with this release?*
I didn't see an answer for that. The documentation on the official Web
site lists a bunch of really ancient operating systems, but not which
versions you need.
If you want to support Ubuntu 18.04 then the minimum CMake version needs
to be what comes with those repos. If you have customers/users running
older operating systems, you need to use their version.
The doc on the web site needs to segregate archaic OSes that only work
with very old (possibly no longer available) versions of FOX from
"minimum OS today's version needs." It's confusing to people.
*As to the 7 year old OS*
It's not so much stability as legal requirement. I live in the FDA 510K
regulated world of medical devices. Every few years I get a phone call
or email (usually both) from this Indian consulting firm named Harman to
work on some kind of cardiac device. All work must be done on-site (I
think the place is in Iowa, never went) because you must use the
gingerly maintained development system. OS/2 compiling Qt3. As I said, I
never took the contract because they also want it done for absolutely no
money.
When I was working on this device <https://www.kneevoice.com> not long
ago, we looked at Fox as one of the possible libraries. The end client
had never created a medical device, they wanted sexy, so they used one
of other libraries I evaluated. They also haven't gotten through the
510K process last I heard. I tried to explain to them how wretched the
Medtronic base unit for pacemaker control is, but they would have none
of it. For board verification software, we needed serial and audio i/o
with almost no GUI, so I went with NanoGUI because it was tiny and
wouldn't get in the way of the other two.
When we build a medical device there are several detailed documents that
must be created. One lists the file size, version, and location of every
binary on the device. The other is a document third party testing must
be able to re-create the development environment from. When they get
done, the binary versions of everything must match before they begin
testing.
Most places are now using Oracle Virtual Box VM that is configured to be
disconnected from the source repos and Internet because someone
installing their favorite IDE or whatever can pooch this. First time
through there is no avoiding a full 510K process using multiple external
testing firms approved by the FDA. It is time consuming and expensive.
For something like a surgical robot it can consume 5-7 years. Once you
get through it, you can't change anything in the Dev world.
/Source code doesn't count/
As long as it is a library you build from source and contain within your
own code repository you can qualify for "minor enhancement" approval
pass if you:
1. Perform full static analysis of said code
2. Have a formal code review for every module/change with formal diffs
that you archive in your Design History File.
3. Perform full in-house QA validation of the new device once it comes
off your existing FDA approved manufacturing line.
For some lower risk devices you just send that documentation to the FDA
and you get approved a short time later.
If the binaries of your Dev environment don't match what you originally
filed . . . fugedaboutit
It's not just FDA stuff. I worked at a client site that develops
control/operation systems for hog barns. They are also still on Ubuntu
18.04 last I heard. There are some similar regulations for systems
responsible for animal welfare.
We exist in worlds where you are locked in, for good reason, to a Dev
environment so results are 100% reproducible.
When it comes to GUI libraries, there can be compelling bug fixes or new
features that justify bringing in the new library when working on an
enhancement or fix. You are stopped cold if the Dev environment has to
change though. Must be a product generating oceans of revenue to justify
going through a more involved 510K process.
Sorry for the length, but there is no short explanation.
--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593 (cell)
https://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com
https://infiniteexposure.net
https://johnsmith-book.com
--------------mWYV3q0GUVVYl07pj2TH0aYb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/2/2026 11:05 AM, Sander Jansen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACj81kFBtL-0J3DY5Sn+s+f_qQN5ASQs4Doo7fQjq7Y1EVdkkA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I still don't get it. Assuming you have 3.27, why can't you
set the minimum required version in FOX to 3.23?<br>
<br>
> But, if you want to still support Ubuntu 18.04 (Some
development locked there) your min needs to be 3.10<br>
<br>
</div>
I don't see the point. If you insist on running a 7 year old OS
for stability reasons, why would you want the latest version of
a library. Just download 1.6 or whatever was released 7 years
ago. Also there seems to be some sort of double standard, YES on
downloading the bleeding edge of FOX and NO on downloading the
latest cmake.</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, this goes back to my original chiming in and the fact I
live in a different world.</p>
<p><b>What is the oldest OS you are looking to support with this
release?</b></p>
<p>I didn't see an answer for that. The documentation on the
official Web site lists a bunch of really ancient operating
systems, but not which versions you need. <br>
</p>
<p>If you want to support Ubuntu 18.04 then the minimum CMake
version needs to be what comes with those repos. If you have
customers/users running older operating systems, you need to use
their version.</p>
<p>The doc on the web site needs to segregate archaic OSes that only
work with very old (possibly no longer available) versions of FOX
from "minimum OS today's version needs." It's confusing to people.</p>
<p><b>As to the 7 year old OS</b></p>
<p>It's not so much stability as legal requirement. I live in the
FDA 510K regulated world of medical devices. Every few years I get
a phone call or email (usually both) from this Indian consulting
firm named Harman to work on some kind of cardiac device. All work
must be done on-site (I think the place is in Iowa, never went)
because you must use the gingerly maintained development system.
OS/2 compiling Qt3. As I said, I never took the contract because
they also want it done for absolutely no money.</p>
<p>When I was working on <a href="https://www.kneevoice.com">this
device</a> not long ago, we looked at Fox as one of the possible
libraries. The end client had never created a medical device, they
wanted sexy, so they used one of other libraries I evaluated. They
also haven't gotten through the 510K process last I heard. I tried
to explain to them how wretched the Medtronic base unit for
pacemaker control is, but they would have none of it. For board
verification software, we needed serial and audio i/o with almost
no GUI, so I went with NanoGUI because it was tiny and wouldn't
get in the way of the other two.</p>
<p>When we build a medical device there are several detailed
documents that must be created. One lists the file size, version,
and location of every binary on the device. The other is a
document third party testing must be able to re-create the
development environment from. When they get done, the binary
versions of everything must match before they begin testing.</p>
<p>Most places are now using Oracle Virtual Box VM that is
configured to be disconnected from the source repos and Internet
because someone installing their favorite IDE or whatever can
pooch this. First time through there is no avoiding a full 510K
process using multiple external testing firms approved by the FDA.
It is time consuming and expensive. For something like a surgical
robot it can consume 5-7 years. Once you get through it, you can't
change anything in the Dev world.</p>
<p><i>Source code doesn't count</i></p>
<p>As long as it is a library you build from source and contain
within your own code repository you can qualify for "minor
enhancement" approval pass if you:</p>
<ol>
<li>Perform full static analysis of said code</li>
<li>Have a formal code review for every module/change with formal
diffs that you archive in your Design History File.</li>
<li>Perform full in-house QA validation of the new device once it
comes off your existing FDA approved manufacturing line.</li>
</ol>
<p>For some lower risk devices you just send that documentation to
the FDA and you get approved a short time later.</p>
<p>If the binaries of your Dev environment don't match what you
originally filed . . . fugedaboutit</p>
<p>It's not just FDA stuff. I worked at a client site that develops
control/operation systems for hog barns. They are also still on
Ubuntu 18.04 last I heard. There are some similar regulations for
systems responsible for animal welfare. <br>
</p>
<p>We exist in worlds where you are locked in, for good reason, to a
Dev environment so results are 100% reproducible. <br>
</p>
<p>When it comes to GUI libraries, there can be compelling bug fixes
or new features that justify bringing in the new library when
working on an enhancement or fix. You are stopped cold if the Dev
environment has to change though. Must be a product generating
oceans of revenue to justify going through a more involved 510K
process.</p>
<p>Sorry for the length, but there is no short explanation. <br>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Roland Hughes, President
Logikal Solutions
(630)-205-1593 (cell)
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com">https://theminimumyouneedtoknow.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://infiniteexposure.net">https://infiniteexposure.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://johnsmith-book.com">https://johnsmith-book.com</a></pre>
</body>
</html>
--------------mWYV3q0GUVVYl07pj2TH0aYb--
--===============3749596683665973142==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
--===============3749596683665973142==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
_______________________________________________
Foxgui-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/foxgui-users
--===============3749596683665973142==--