----- Original Message ----- > On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade > <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 2014-03-27 17:40 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: > >>> We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so > >>> long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some > >>> newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets > >>> a little awkward: the OpenGTL package only works up to LLVM 3.3. > >>> > >>> However, OpenGTL is dead upstream, and the only thing requiring it in > >>> F20 gold - calligra-krita, by way of libQtGTL - has already been updated > >>> to Obsolete OpenGTL. As far as I know OpenGTL is the only such package > >>> we have requiring LLVM 3.3, so the rest of the rebase should just be a > >>> matter of updating to match F21. > >>> > >>> The following source packages will also be updated for the llvm rebase: > >>> > >>> dragonegg > >>> gambas3 > >>> pocl > >>> pure > >>> python-llvmpy > >>> > >>> If there are no serious objections I'll try to get this all into testing > >>> early next week. If you _do_ happen to be using OpenGTL for something > >>> in F20, now would be an excellent time for you to start working on > >>> porting it to current LLVM. > >> > >> I can absolutely see the reasons for doing this, but...can it at least > >> go through a fesco rubber stamp? Let's face it, entirely deprecating a > >> library we shipped as part of the gold release seems to be a pretty > >> flagrant violation of the update policy, and really ought to be granted > >> a formal exception at the very least if it's going to go ahead. > >> > >> "As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a stable > >> release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features, > >> particularly when those features would materially affect the user or > >> developer experience." > >> "ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged" > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases > >> > >> Fedora *is* a platform, not just a set of packages, however half-assedly > >> we conform to that vision, so I guess I just feel a bit uncomfortable > >> not at least putting up a few hoops for this to jump through. :) > > > > This patch may be useful: > > https://abf.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva/opengtl/blob/master/opengtl-0.9.18-llvm-3.4.patch > > If that works we should probably use it for F20 to avoid retiring a > package mid release. +1 And yep, it should go to FESCo - this has much more bigger scope than 10.0.3 due to LLVM update. You know I'm more than ok with updates to Fn-1 but this one should be coordinated very well. Jaroslav > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
