On 19 April 2016 at 17:30, probono <probono@...3377...> wrote:

2016-04-19 8:40 GMT+02:00 Olof Bjarnason <olof.bjarnason@...400...>:
> An appimage would be good for *testing* purposes.

Agree, ideally we could tie AppImage generation into the existing
continuous/nightly build system, if such as thing exists (I could not
find recent Linux nightlies in a quick cursory search).

Yes, agree. Having continuous building of AppImages as soon as anyone

pushes changes sounds great.

> Having it as a general production Inkscape I think is not such a great idea;
> we already have in place the possibility to build inkscape for a great
> number of Linux OSes and ending that would not be popular.

Also providing an AppImage would not imply ending anything. it would
merely be one additional option for users of less-frequently updated
distros to use the latest released Inkscape version on the day when it
comes out.

> Not to mention we'd still need to maintain builds for osx and windows; this
> would go against the whole cmake work that has been done partially to
> address that builds system complication.

Maybe you can clarify; I don't understand how providing AppImages
would influence in any way whatever is being discussed on using cmake,
OS X or Windows.

I was reacting to what I perceived as a "let's go with AppImages for everything!"

sentiment which I might have misinterpreted in the thread. Sorry.

But now that you forced me to re-read the thread, I am also curious to why it's not

possible to build&package on newer distributions, and be able to run on older...?

As the dependencies are bundled into the ISO this should be possible?