11:35 a.m.
As decided by FESCo on 2012-12-05 meeting, all proposed Features are required
to pass through the community review by announcing them on devel-announce list.
FESCo votes on new features no sooner than a week from the announcement.
= Features/GCC48 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48
* Detailed description:
GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and is currently
in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on x86_64
with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19, out of 12712 packages 11687 built successfully, 933
packages failed to build both with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 and gcc-4.7.2-9.fc19
(thus unlikely gcc related), 67 packages failed due to issues on the side of
the packages, 22 failed due to bugs on the gcc side that should be fixed
already in gcc-4.8.0-0.3.fc19 and 3 failed due to issues still to be fixed
on the GCC side.
See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175876.html
for details. Once gcc-4.8.0-* is built into Fedora, after a few days or weeks
a mass rebuild should be performed.
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
1:15 p.m.
GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and is
currently
in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on x86_64
Looking at the schedule.... Wouldn't it be better to do the mass rebuild in
Rawhide before the branch?
If we're really looking at a second-half-of-May final release, that means
beta testing ends the beginning of May, which possibly puts the window for
the rebuild _after_ the beta release (let alone before the branch).
If we're going to have a short F19 cycle, maybe this should be accepted now
for F20 and happen in Rawhide after the branch. Or, if the F19 cycle is to
be longer, maybe that's not an issue.
Unless we're really confident that this won't cause problems.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
1:19 p.m.
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:15:25 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and
is
> currently in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test
> mass rebuild on x86_64
Looking at the schedule.... Wouldn't it be better to do the mass
rebuild in Rawhide before the branch?
We always do this, yes.
If we're really looking at a second-half-of-May final release,
that
means beta testing ends the beginning of May, which possibly puts the
window for the rebuild _after_ the beta release (let alone before the
branch).
FESCo has not yet decided the schedule. We should nuke those stupid
DRAFT sections, because they are just confusing people.
If we're going to have a short F19 cycle, maybe this should be
accepted now for F20 and happen in Rawhide after the branch. Or, if
the F19 cycle is to be longer, maybe that's not an issue.
Unless we're really confident that this won't cause problems.
We need to decide the schedule soon IMHO.
kevin
1:52 p.m.
On 01/16/2013 11:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We need to decide the schedule soon IMHO.
Perhaps the schedule should be decided in part on time to do mass
rebuild after gcc 4.8.0 is released. The ARM team would really like to
see 4.8 in F19 because 4.8 is the first gcc with native Aarch64 support.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com
2:31 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:52:04AM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 01/16/2013 11:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>We need to decide the schedule soon IMHO.
Perhaps the schedule should be decided in part on time to do mass
rebuild after gcc 4.8.0 is released. The ARM team would really like
to see 4.8 in F19 because 4.8 is the first gcc with native Aarch64
support.
The mass rebuild doesn't have to be with a released compiler (and in fact,
usually has been performed with a prerelease compiler), it is just
important that the release is released with a released compiler.
Jakub
2:38 p.m.
On 01/16/2013 12:31 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
The mass rebuild doesn't have to be with a released compiler (and
in fact,
usually has been performed with a prerelease compiler), it is just
important that the release is released with a released compiler.
Even better! Will the 3 failed builds mentioned at the beginning of the
thread be resolved by the end-of-January estimated ready to go time?
Are there any outstanding bugs in the 4.8-pre compiler that might have
major impact on Fedora? If gcc 4.8 has progressed to the point that
it's safe to use I'd love to see it done in F19.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com
2:54 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:38:29PM -0800, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Even better! Will the 3 failed builds mentioned at the beginning of
the thread be resolved by the end-of-January estimated ready to go
time? Are there any outstanding bugs in the 4.8-pre compiler that
might have major impact on Fedora? If gcc 4.8 has progressed to the
point that it's safe to use I'd love to see it done in F19.
Two of the issues are resolved already, one (--with-lto issue in some game)
probably not, but so difficult to reduce that it is probably better to
suggest not using LTO there for now.
Jakub
2:39 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:15:25 -0500
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and
> > is
> > currently in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test
> > mass rebuild on x86_64
>
> Looking at the schedule.... Wouldn't it be better to do the mass
> rebuild in Rawhide before the branch?
We always do this, yes.
> If we're really looking at a second-half-of-May final release, that
> means beta testing ends the beginning of May, which possibly puts
> the
> window for the rebuild _after_ the beta release (let alone before
> the
> branch).
FESCo has not yet decided the schedule. We should nuke those stupid
DRAFT sections, because they are just confusing people.
Sure I can do that, I did not find a better way how to communicate the
decision? Any better idea? As we still need some guidance for F19. It
affects more teams.
> If we're going to have a short F19 cycle, maybe this should
be
> accepted now for F20 and happen in Rawhide after the branch. Or, if
> the F19 cycle is to be longer, maybe that's not an issue.
>
> Unless we're really confident that this won't cause problems.
We need to decide the schedule soon IMHO.
I think at submission deadline we should have a good overview of what's
probably getting in (even not every single feature will be approved by
that time, as there's +1 week for announcement, some time to discuss it).
I like the idea to do proper planning but it also blocks other teams
and people starts complaining (the reason I wrote above we need at least
some guidance so I'd like to avoid removing even this very sparse info).
But I'm getting OT here - let's talk more about it at FUDCon.
Btw. for scheduling, I asked Jakub today for details before announcing
the Feature, I put his answer in a Talk page. But he already answered
that (you see, I expected that question ;-), I just did not want to
block announcement on that as I'd like to have it ready for next FESCo
meeting (to make as much stuff done before departing for FUDCon, sorry).
"[18:26] <jakub_> jreznik: as for scheduling, mid march/mid april is the
gcc upstream release, it would land into Fedora within a few days from now,
then voluntary rebuilding, after a few days or week or three full mass
rebuild"
Jaroslav
kevin
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
1:21 p.m.
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:15 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and
is currently
> in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on x86_64
Looking at the schedule.... Wouldn't it be better to do the mass rebuild in
Rawhide before the branch?
If we're really looking at a second-half-of-May final release, that means
beta testing ends the beginning of May, which possibly puts the window for
the rebuild _after_ the beta release (let alone before the branch).
If we're going to have a short F19 cycle, maybe this should be accepted now
for F20 and happen in Rawhide after the branch. Or, if the F19 cycle is to
be longer, maybe that's not an issue.
Unless we're really confident that this won't cause problems.
I'd say that if FESCo accepts this feature for F19, it implicates making
the F19 schedule long enough to accommodate the rebuild before
branching.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
1:25 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:21:24PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2013-01-16 at 14:15 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and is currently
> > in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on
x86_64
>
> Looking at the schedule.... Wouldn't it be better to do the mass rebuild in
> Rawhide before the branch?
>
> If we're really looking at a second-half-of-May final release, that means
> beta testing ends the beginning of May, which possibly puts the window for
> the rebuild _after_ the beta release (let alone before the branch).
>
> If we're going to have a short F19 cycle, maybe this should be accepted now
> for F20 and happen in Rawhide after the branch. Or, if the F19 cycle is to
> be longer, maybe that's not an issue.
>
> Unless we're really confident that this won't cause problems.
I'd say that if FESCo accepts this feature for F19, it implicates making
the F19 schedule long enough to accommodate the rebuild before
branching.
If this is decided upon soon, the gcc packages could be ready for a mass
rebuild around end of January or even slightly earlier.
The package is in git right now, but so far built just as scratch builds.
Jakub
1:21 p.m.
Jaroslav Reznik schreef op wo 16-01-2013 om 12:35 [-0500]:
As decided by FESCo on 2012-12-05 meeting, all proposed Features are
required
to pass through the community review by announcing them on devel-announce list.
FESCo votes on new features no sooner than a week from the announcement.
= Features/GCC48 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48
I would also like to mention that we at the Fedora MinGW SIG are also
preparing on introducing GCC 4.8 for our win32/win64 cross-compiler
(mingw-gcc). A test mass rebuild of all our 135 mingw-* packages is
currently being performed. I'll report the results back to the Fedora
MinGW and upstream mingw-w64 mailing lists once this test mass rebuild
is completed so we can investigate and resolve the remaining issues.
We plan on introducing mingw-gcc 4.8 in rawhide shortly after the native
gcc package gets updated to 4.8. That way we'll be ready before the mass
rebuild of all Fedora packages starts.
Regards,
Erik van Pienbroek
Fedora MinGW SIG
5:45 a.m.
Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> writes:
As decided by FESCo on 2012-12-05 meeting, all proposed Features are
required
to pass through the community review by announcing them on devel-announce list.
FESCo votes on new features no sooner than a week from the announcement.
= Features/GCC48 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48
* Detailed description:
GCC 4.8.0 is going to be released in mid March to mid April and is currently
in regression bugfix only mode. I've performed a test mass rebuild on x86_64
with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19, out of 12712 packages 11687 built successfully, 933
packages failed to build both with gcc-4.8.0-0.1.fc19 and gcc-4.7.2-9.fc19
(thus unlikely gcc related), 67 packages failed due to issues on the side of
the packages, 22 failed due to bugs on the gcc side that should be fixed
already in gcc-4.8.0-0.3.fc19 and 3 failed due to issues still to be fixed
on the GCC side.
See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175876.html
for details. Once gcc-4.8.0-* is built into Fedora, after a few days or weeks
a mass rebuild should be performed.
is gcc bug[1] fixed in 4.8.0? it could bring a lot of nasty problems
with app which using atomit_t (unsigned long)
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
--
Nikola
6:05 a.m.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:45:04PM +0100, Nikola Pajkovsky wrote:
is gcc bug[1] fixed in 4.8.0? it could bring a lot of nasty problems
with app which using atomit_t (unsigned long)
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55981
I think it isn't yet committed, has been approved though.
Not sure why do you mention it though, 4.7.x has the same bug
(and older gcc's didn't have __atomic_store{,_n} builtins),
so if some code in Fedora hits that issue, it already has that problem in
F17/F18.
Jakub
2:22 p.m.
Jaroslav Reznik schreef op wo 16-01-2013 om 12:35 [-0500]:
See
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175876.html
for details. Once gcc-4.8.0-* is built into Fedora, after a few days or weeks
a mass rebuild should be performed.
I see that gcc 4.8 was just imported in rawhide some hours ago. What's
the plan next? Will the rebuilds happen in a side-tag or in the master
branch and when is it scheduled? We on the Fedora MinGW side are ready
to import mingw-gcc 4.8 in rawhide as well and we would like to know
what's going to happen next so we make the necessary preparations.
Introducing mingw-gcc 4.8 is a bit more painful for us at the moment as
upstream has decided to use a different exception handling model for the
win64 target starting with gcc 4.8 (SEH instead of SjLj). Therefore
various packages need to be rebuilt soon after the introduction of
mingw-gcc 4.8 to avoid broken dependencies.
Regards,
Erik van Pienbroek
Fedora MinGW SIG
2:28 p.m.
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 09:22:00PM +0100, Erik van Pienbroek wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik schreef op wo 16-01-2013 om 12:35 [-0500]:
> See https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-January/175876.html
> for details. Once gcc-4.8.0-* is built into Fedora, after a few days or weeks
> a mass rebuild should be performed.
I see that gcc 4.8 was just imported in rawhide some hours ago. What's
the plan next? Will the rebuilds happen in a side-tag or in the master
It hasn't been imported into rawhide yet, it was just built (first two
non-scratch builds) and (almost) immediately untagged, just so that before
tomorrow's FeSCo meeting there are packages already available and ready to
be tagged into f19 instantly.
Jakub
4123
days inactive
4129
days old
14 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Brendan Conoboy -
Erik van Pienbroek -
Jakub Jelinek -
Jaroslav Reznik -
Kevin Fenzi -
Matthew Miller -
Nikola Pajkovsky -
Tomas Mraz