Backporting LLVM 3.1 for Fedora 17

[Michel Alexandre Salim]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11/18/2012 01:11 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kalev Lember wrote:
>> I am a strong believer that new features should only be
>> introduced in new Fedora releases. This is why we have releases
>> after all: so that people could choose when they get new
>> features. If they want stability [1], they can choose not to
>> upgrade; if they want new features (new LLVM/Clang, new Mesa),
>> they upgrade to a new Fedora release [2].
> 
> The issue here is that Clang can't compile ANY C++ program in
> Fedora 17 as it is now. This is not about introducing a feature,
> it's about making the software we ship actually WORK.
> 
Right; I've been hesitant about upgrading LLVM in the past, but
unfortunately post-release GCC updates have historically been major
enough as to break clang++.

I'm tending towards upgrading the stack now, but if there are really
strong objections, I could reconsider and work on backporting clang
fixes from more recent branches.

I note, however, that guidelines are guidelines, and there have been
notable exceptions when the package maintainers deem upgrading is the
better option -- KDE, and (soon) Haskell Platform, are provided as
updates to stable releases.

In this case, LLVM developers' policy is to *never* fix bugs in any
tree but master and whichever release they're stabilizing at the
moment (right now, 3.2), so it seems all the more reason to ship as
up-to-date an LLVM package as possible - and if the maintainer of the
only core component (mesa) dependent on this is amenable, I don't
(IMHO) really see a problem myself.

Regards,

- -- 
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email:  salimma at fedoraproject.org  | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus at jabber.ccc.de       | IRC: hircus at irc.freenode.net

()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\  www.asciiribbon.org   - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQqcNkAAoJEEr1VKujapN63kgH/iYeHOZjex0663gBOTDC3hak
sXKu2Y4UCkB0CNI8jCrJ3KjtSPfEwK1GNym63UKUkO3LUDzuAsa1PTbODWrstvav
COhwxdkwthsPo8o/YVNzb6B7sz/S1Xl4Lh7hhbkCZ1YihW742bRe2pxxUbajISHf
3GM8RUlc3uxywvUslOLB1JFK+6LHMT5DGyLDxPILC7hasYLCUkguiu6esIRUGHcH
7xlOrlBIbUA2B7GAjKmi3fdvmV59304GQcENsoYfz9reB5aZK/Im+UiRxe08EojW
eOVjH6MxJoopB8ryJOV2u3iZ7NBGGipZWx3COPyg7VsMzAA2zv3GczmxcOtCfUc=
=hI58
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----