On 7/18/22 06:33, Fabio Valentini wrote:
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releases is work, but I don't think having outdated LLVM components on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.
Can you send me links to these bugs.
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 ...
We've been training up more people on LLVM packaging so we should be able
to cover the stable release of Fedora better in the future. I'm sorry
that the stable releases have been falling behind, we'll work on getting them
back up to date.
-Tom
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
_______________________________________________
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
