On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Are there any plans to bring this to F18? > > Good question > >> There was talk about bringing 3.1 to F17 including some support from >> the Mesa guys but then nothing actually happened. I would really >> like it if I could go through F18 without having to build my own >> private parallel installable llvm 3.2 (i need the c++11 memory model >> support introduced in 3.2 for my lock free algorithms). > > I think it would still be good to do the 3.1 backport to F17. 3.1 doesn't directly affect me any more (since the previous discussion some time ago f18 has been released) but i do have at least a couple of f17 machines i would be happy to test with. At least the clang part. > 3.2 requires newer Mesa and also some other version bumps > of reverse deps but perhaps it could be done later for F18 > after it has been tested in Rawhide? In the previous discussion [1] and more specifically [2] updating appears to be a good thing for Mesa. Of course the Mesa people will know better if that still applies. As with any slightly wider reaching updates there is certainly no harm in Rawhide first and a reasonable span in updates-testing. If you want additional testing for f18 without blocking updates-testing then repos.fedorapeople.org is also an option for testing. I know a few people who would be happy to test from there. > But I am not the package owner or comaintainer and > still kind of new to llvm so it is not really my call at this point. Still doesn't prevent discussion so that all the information is present when whoever does make the call gets around to it. [1] - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-November/174399.html [2] - http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-November/174406.html -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't... -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
