On Mon, Jul 8, 2019 at 4:14 AM James Paul Turner <jamesturner246@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That seems appropriate. We need to discuss this with pcahyna. I have > CCd him. Pavel, please see above. > > To avoid this issue in the future, is it possible to have the two > separate packages maintained by separate teams, or is that just a > headache waiting to happen? I'm not sure. In this case, though, i don't think we need it. I've been building packages in a local mock for the last few days. I've still got 6 to go, and so far I've only hit 2 issues, neither of them related to MPFR. Unless something comes up with these last few, I think we need the MPFR 3 and MPC-linked-with-MPFR-3 compatibility packages only to get gcc switched over, then we can discard them and have an entirely MPFR 4 distribution. In fact, I know that one of the remaining 6, sagemath, won't be a problem. Upstream advertises support for MPFR 4. All I have to do is drop sagemath-mpfr.patch, which keeps it building with MPFR 3. Pavel, are you around? Some of these packages take a long time to build, but I think if we had, say, a 4 or 5 day window in which the gcc and texlive maintainers agreed not to do any new builds, we could get Fedora switched entirely over to MPFR 4. We need to start figuring out when that should happen. We are already past the deadline for system-wide change proposals for Fedora 31, but if we get our ducks in a row, we can perhaps get this into Fedora 32 as soon as that window opens. (I'm assuming this will be a system-wide change since it affects gcc.) -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
