Re: Missing LLVM stack bugfix updates in stable Fedora branches

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

 



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 releases is work, but I don't think having outdated LLVM components on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




[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