Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 12:35 AM Tom Stellard <tstellar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> * Invert the order of compat/main packages. Instead of having the compat package be >> the old version, and the main package be the new version, we would have the compat package >> be newer and the main package be older. This would allow us to introduce a new version of >> llvm without impacting other packages that depend on the main version of LLVM. > > My first thought is "don't make me hurt you". So are my second and > third thoughts. Please do not leave the nominally obsolete version as > the default cnotemporary version, the "main" release should always be > the defult. I'm not sure I understood this part or if there was a miscommunication somewhere. Considering that LLVM releases usually happen very late in Fedora's development cycle, if the default LLVM version is changed, packages may start to FTBFS very late in the development cycle if they buildrequire the default LLVM version. Notice that, in this proposal, packages that would prefer to use the new version may still update them by buildrequiring the new versioned package. With that said: do you really think that it's better to let packages FTBFS late in the Fedora development cycle? If that's still true, could you elaborate it, please? > New, pre-release versions should be as short-lived as > possible. AFAIU, there are no plans to increase the time pre-release version will be kept. -- Tulio Magno -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
