On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:26 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > > Today I encountered another LLVM-specific bug that affects at least > > one Rust package and causes non-working code to be produced, which > > prompted this question: > > > > Why are stable releases not getting bugfix releases of LLVM? > > > > Fedora 35 is stuck at LLVM 13.0.0, while 13.0.1 has been released. > > Fedora 36 is stuck at LLVM 14.0.0, while 14.0.1 through 14.0.6 have > > been released. > > Even Rawhide is at LLVM 14.0.5, but has not been updated to 14.0.6 yet > > (released over 3 weeks ago). > > > > However, the llvm13 compat package that exists on Fedora 36+ *has* > > been updated to version 13.0.1, so I'm not sure why this update wasn't > > also pushed to Fedora 35, where LLVM 13 is the default, and would > > benefit much more from bugfixes provided by 13.0.1. > > > > Given that llvm and the whole llvm ecosystem (clang, lld, rustc, ghc > > on some architectures, mesa/llvmpipe) are an important part of our > > stack, it seems bad that stable releases are missing out on several > > bugfix updates for those critical packages. > > > > I appreciate that updating ~a dozen packages for new LLVM point > > releases is work, but I don't think having outdated LLVM components on > > stable releases of Fedora is a good idea, either. > > > > What can we do to improve this situation? > > Have you reached out to the maintainer(s)? In the past they seem to > have been quite effective at keeping things up to date AFAIA so maybe > they've got stuff going on of late, PTO, have other priorities or > something else. > > You don't mention if you've had a discussion with the maintainer(s), > whether they replied, or even cc:ed them on this mail. I personally > would tend to do that before mailing a list, but then maybe you have > and you didn't mention it here. I have filed multiple bugs against llvm (or rust, which were then reassigned to llvm) and llvm compat packages over the past 1-2 years, and they've been pretty much ignored. Also, given that rawhide *is* up-to-date with LLVM bugfix releases until about three weeks ago, but the llvm packages on f36 and f35 weren't touched since 4 months (f36) and f35 (9 months) ago, respectively, so I don't think PTO can be a problem here. Or, if it is, then we'd need to have a serious talk about adding backup maintainers to those packages ... Fabio _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
