Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy Change

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 10:22 +0000, devel-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:42:36 +0200
> 
> From: Vít Ondruch <vondruch@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Subject: Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: CompilerPolicy
> 
>         Change
> 
> To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> Message-ID: <0f69dde1-839e-e0c3-26d8-90af2c5d6010@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dne 05. 06. 20 v 9:52 Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> 
> > Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Fedora has historically forced packages to build with GCC unless the
> > > upstream project for the package only supported Clang/LLVM.  This
> > > change proposal replaces that policy with one where compiler selection
> > > for Fedora follows the package's upstream preferences.
> > > == Owner ==
> > > * Name: Jeff Law
> > > * Email: law@xxxxxxxxxx
> > I am opposed to this change. Chromium and Firefox build fine with GCC. I 
> > think that a distribution should be built with a consistent toolchain 
> > wherever possible.
> > Last I checked, there were several reasons why GCC is preferred over 
> > Clang/LLVM in Fedora. And if that should ever change (or have changed 
> > already), then switching the systemwide default (reversing the rules, i.e., 
> > using GCC only for those packages that do not build with Clang) should be 
> > envisioned. But as far as I know, that is not the case at this time, 
> > considering runtime performance, security features, etc.
> > I do not see why we should allow yet another special case for Firefox, nor 
> > why we should let random packages make their own choice of compiler and risk 
> > running into hidden binary incompatibilities. We have a system compiler for 
> > a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just FTR, there are technical (and security) reasons why we might
> 
> consider switching Ruby from GCC to Clang in the future:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1721553
Absolutely correct.  While this bug contains the first public hint of the
proposal we're now discussing, we'd been discussing these issues within the
toolchain team for some time before that bug raised its ugly head.

Jeff
_______________________________________________
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




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux