On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:13 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > Sending this to the relevant package owners as well as the development > list - if there's too much pushback, I'll look at backporting the > patches instead, though given that LLVM 3.2 is scheduled for release > next month, if we agree, going forward, that occasional stack rebuilds > are acceptable, it would really lower the maintenance burden, instead > of having to support 3 LLVM releases. This would actually make it easier to keep updated Mesa in older releases. Right now if we backport Mesa 9 to F17 we'd have to disable the radeonsi driver as it requires >= llvm 3.1. That said, llvm consumers are difficult to keep in sync with llvm anyway. Many llvm projects seem like they pick a point release to build against and then never get updated when the ABI changes. If we do this we might want to start by building compat-llvm30 for the libraries and migrating the consumers independently afterwards. It'd be fine if that compat package only lived for the one release that needs it (ie no compat-llvm30 in F18 or later, apps that aren't ported get deadpackaged), but at least that way we could avoid breaking llvm apps in F17 updates that worked in F17 gold. I'm aware that this isn't quite in line with the Fedora updates policy, but I consider that a bug in the policy. I'd be happy to help draft policy amendments for this so we have a standard process. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
