Update changelog

[nosracd]

Marked as draft until the date can be filled in. Suggestions from all are welcome.

[nosracd]

@tprk77 We're wrapping up on preparation for the 1.5.0 release. Is there anything (lua-related or otherwise) that you'd like to make it into the release?

[judfs]

https://github.com/lcm-proj/lcm/blob/dev-release-1.5/lcm-python/README is dated and features old maintainer email addresses.

Change log things:

Minimum requirement changes: i.e java 6 to 8 ~~ 2357c6a ~~ (edit: actually that commit isn't saying that)

[nosracd]

Good points...

https://github.com/lcm-proj/lcm/blob/dev-release-1.5/lcm-python/README is dated and features old maintainer email addresses.

A lot of that information, in addition to being dated, doesn't seem useful anymore. For example, rather than listing maintainer email addresses it makes more sense to open an issue now that the project is hosted on GitHub. Because of that, 1f019ee just removes the file.

Change log things:

Minimum requirement changes: i.e java 6 to 8 ~~ 2357c6a ~~ (edit: actually that commit isn't saying that)

It's possible that LCM still builds on Java 6 but the oldest version any of our test platforms has packages for is 8 so 1f019ee raises the minimum required version to 8.

[tprk77]

Sorry I missed that ping before. If possible, I would take a couple days to look the the release.

[tprk77]

So improvements are great, and it's good to see this work going into LCM. I've found two things I wanted to ask about, and they are both regarding CMake:

• In a couple of places there were changes to use pkg-config via pkg_check_modules. It's my understanding that CMake can use pkg-config for compatibility reasons, but it's kind of uncommon. Anyway, it's I think it's more idiomatic to use find_package. I could try to fix the issue with FindGLIB2, but I want to know what you think first.

• In a couple of places there were changes to use link_libraries instead of target_link_libraries. According to the documentation, people should always prefer target_link_libraries even though it's more verbose. I can do a PR for this.

Should I go ahead and make these changes?

[tprk77]

Link: #442, #443