On Thu, 2019-09-26 at 13:21 -0700, 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. AFAIK, there is also still a further potentially relevant Bodhi limitation, that you need to be on the maintainer list for all the packages you are adding to a Bodhi update. So if maintainer A is only maintainer of LLVM and maintainer B is only maintainer of mesa, they will not be able to put their packages into a single Bodhi update themselves and will also have to ask a proven packages to do it. The resulting update will also get "tainted" by this, rejecting any further changes from non-proven packagers. (I really hope we can get at least this one fixed already. :P) > > 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 :>) > -- > Adam Williamson > Fedora QA Community Monkey > IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net > http://www.happyassassin.net > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
