https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat <nalimilan@xxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) > (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3) > > (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) > > > Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because > > > LLVM API is never stable. > > Well, it really depends on how Fedora's and Julia's schedules interact in > > the future. > > It depends on Julia itself, actually. Well, it depends on what version of Julia we want in each Fedora release, and on whether the LLVM maintainers in Fedora want to upgrade it in stable releases or not. > > But OTOH when backporting a new LLVM version to a published Fedora > > release, it's likely that Julia will break as there will likely be some lag > > between LLVM's and Julia's releases. > > I don't think you need to update julia for each Fedora release, we need to > keep something stable. Sure. But for example in F20 LLVM was updated from 3.3 to 3.4, which would have been a problem if Julia had been included in that release. So even if I keep Julia stable, which is perfectly possible, LLVM maintainers need to be OK with keeping it stable too (and they may have good reasons not to want this). > > With an unstable API like LLVM's, > > versioned parallel-installable packages are kind of inevitable. > > Still not a good reason. If something can't be considered stable, you'd > better package it in copr first. What, move LLVM out of Fedora? :-) It's not Julia which is unstable, it's LLVM. And I guess it's fine. In such cases it is frequent to allow several versions to be parallel-installable, just like GTK2 and GTK3 live together for years in Fedora. > > (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) > > > Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? > > Yes, the next version will use LLVM 3.5. (Support for 3.4 is almost present > > already, but there are a few bugs and it has not been tested thoroughly > > enough that the developers feel confident to use it now.) > > Oh, so llvm3.5 will appear in review queue again? What about 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 > etc.? I can't tell for sure. I can ask Julia developers to try to remain very close to upstream LLVM. They already do that, but they decided to skip 3.4 since it didn't bring much benefit while 3.5 was more interesting. They can probably avoid doing that in the future if distributions need it. But again, if LLVM maintainers want to update it right after the release in a stable Fedora release, the same situation is going to happen. But what's the problem with including llvm3.X in parallel with llvm? The packaging work has already been done, the code is tested, and it adds additional stability for packages and users who may need it. Julia is not the only package which would have found it useful; for example, it seems that ghc only supports 3.3 too (cf. bug 1049057). The other strategy is to use Software Collections: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049057#c6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review