I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are generally easily fixed.
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are generally easily fixed.
Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone* unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone* unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.
2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459243
At some point we're going to be holding back new stuff more than we are breaking existing stuff, but I don't know when that point will be. 2.6.X has been in rawhide since Mar 28 so it's been beaten on for a while.
Any other comments?
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:
There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why. I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager, but why can't it wait until F10?
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:
There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why. I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager, but why can't it wait until F10?
We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.
Kevin Kofler
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:
There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why. I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager, but why can't it wait until F10?
We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.
Will KDE 4.2 be pushed into F-9, though? I understand the rationale for upgrading F-9's KDE to 4.1, but 4.2?
Regards,
Michel Salim wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler@chello.at wrote:
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:
There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why. I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager, but why can't it wait until F10?
We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.
Will KDE 4.2 be pushed into F-9, though? I understand the rationale for upgrading F-9's KDE to 4.1, but 4.2?
Speaking of... where *is* KDE 4.1 for F9? Is it not in the system yet? All I see seems to be 4.0.5.
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Speaking of... where *is* KDE 4.1 for F9? Is it not in the system yet? All I see seems to be 4.0.5.
In updates-testing, same place it's been for the past ~3 weeks. Requested push to stable a few days ago, but can understand infra-folks have been otherwise pre-occupied lately.
-- Rex
Orion Poplawski wrote:
2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459243
At some point we're going to be holding back new stuff more than we are breaking existing stuff, but I don't know when that point will be. 2.6.X has been in rawhide since Mar 28 so it's been beaten on for a while.
Any other comments?
hotness is required here, imo, as cmake-2.6.x is required for any upstream kde/trunk development.
-- Rex
Rex Dieter wrote:
hotness is required here, imo, as cmake-2.6.x is required for any upstream kde/trunk development.
True, but to play devil's advocate, those that are affected can always install cmake from rawhide (like I've done). I'd sure be *happy* to see 2.6 pushed to F9, but I'm also not bothered if it doesn't happen.
On Friday 15 August 2008 02:23:35 pm Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com wrote:
I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are generally easily fixed.
Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone* unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.
Why should Fedora care about Second Life? It is neither in the repos nor Free Software. You can just not upgrade cmake if it breaks your setup too badly. Some need features in cmake 2.6 to move forward. Fedora should not stand still for non-Free Software.
As for breakage in other apps, they can be fixed and sent upstream by maintainers or other volunteers. It wouldn't be pushed without testing in any case. If koji gets failed builds due to dependencies, it usually gets posted to the list.
--Ben
On Friday 15 August 2008 05:35:05 pm Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Friday 15 August 2008 02:23:35 pm Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com
wrote:
I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are generally easily fixed.
Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone* unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.
Why should Fedora care about Second Life? It is neither in the repos nor Free Software. You can just not upgrade cmake if it breaks your setup too badly. Some need features in cmake 2.6 to move forward. Fedora should not stand still for non-Free Software.
As for breakage in other apps, they can be fixed and sent upstream by maintainers or other volunteers. It wouldn't be pushed without testing in any case. If koji gets failed builds due to dependencies, it usually gets posted to the list.
--Ben
I missed something: Second Life /is/ open source (I hadn't found a link for the source on the downloads page and assumed from there). However, the not upgrading still applies if it breaks your build (and 2.6.1 fixes this in any case it seems).
--Ben
-
Ben Boeckel -
Bryan O'Sullivan -
Kevin Kofler -
Matthew Woehlke -
Michel Salim -
Orion Poplawski -
Rex Dieter