On 09/26/2019 01:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 20:55 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Hi Tom, >> >> On 26-09-2019 20:47, Tom Stellard wrote: >>> On 09/26/2019 11:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 11:20 -0700, Tom Stellard wrote: >>>>> On 09/26/2019 11:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>>>>> We are currently in the "Beta to Pre Release" phase of the release >>>>>> cycle. The updates policy for this phase - >>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Beta_to_Pre_Release - >>>>>> says: >>>>>> >>>>>> "From this point onwards maintainers MUST[1]: >>>>>> >>>>>> Avoid Major version updates, ABI breakage or API changes if at all >>>>>> possible." >>>>>> >>>>>> However, it seems a major new release of LLVM is appearing in F31 at >>>>>> present, and AFAIK there has been no discussion or communication about >>>>>> this at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> LLVM 9 is currently in the buildroot, and an update with a very short >>>>>> description has been submitted: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b83bd6b46c >>>>>> >>>>>> (it just says "Update for LLVM 9 rebase.", which is odd since it *is* >>>>>> the LLVM 9 rebase). >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no Change for this, I can't find a mail about it anywhere, >>>>>> it's just been sort of dumped in. Is there enough grounds for dumping >>>>>> in a major new LLVM and violating the update policy at this point in >>>>>> the F31 release? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are compatibility packages included in the update, so there should not >>>>> be any ABI breakage from this update. Also, what exactly is the main >>>>> issue right now? Is it the buildroot overrides? >>>> >>>> This is what caused me to notice it, yes. Another update got built >>>> against LLVM 9 because it was in the buildroot, which means that update >>>> is now not installable without the LLVM 9 update: >>>> >>>> https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-52ecb9952b >>>> >>>> openQA caught this, which put me onto the change. >>>> >>> >>> Ok, what's the best way to resolve this issue? Do you want me to >>> cancel the update and overrides and re-submit after f31-final is out? > > If there's a sufficient justification for including LLVM 9, we still > can. I just wanted to flag up that it was happening and that it > *shouldn't* happen without sufficient justification, and probably > without more communication about it. Like, a mail to devel@ "hold onto > your hats, we're going to upgrade llvm in f31 because X, Y, Z" would've > helped. > >> If I understand things correctly, there are currently separate >> mesa and llvm updates for this in bodhi? That is never a good >> idea when there are ABI dependencies between 2 updates, bodhi does >> allow you to add multiple builds in a single update. >> >> So my 2 cents is that it would be best to cancel the separate >> llvm bodhi update and add the llvm build to the mesa update, then >> the update will be self contained / cleanly apply to current F31 stable. > > So far as resolving this issue goes, the llvm update has like 11 > packages in it, the mesa update has 1. So it would make a deal more > sense to unpush the *mesa* update and add a mesa build to the llvm > update. > > Note that Bodhi will not let you add a package to two updates - even if > one of them is unpushed - so to get the exact same mesa build in an > update you would need help from someone with superpowers who could go > do nasty things in the database to override this. The easier trick is > simply to bump and rebuild mesa with no changes, and add *that* mesa > build to the llvm update. > > You *could* also just leave them separate so long as you make sure not > to push the mesa update stable before the llvm one. It is better to get > this right in the first place and put all the packages into one update, > but if you wind up with them separate and are careful about the push > order it won't cause any huge problems (it just causes things like > openQA test failures that attract angry QA people :>) > The LLVM update has the necessary karma now and all the gating tests have passed. Should I push this to stable now and then push the mesa update later or should we still try to combine the updates? -Tom _______________________________________________ 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
