Heads up: Mesa/LLVM rebase and OpenGTL retirement in F20

[Jaroslav Reznik]

----- Original Message -----
> On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
> <paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andrade at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 2014-03-27 17:40 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>:
> >> On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> >>> We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
> >>> long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
> >>> newer Radeons.  This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
> >>> a little awkward: the OpenGTL package only works up to LLVM 3.3.
> >>>
> >>> However, OpenGTL is dead upstream, and the only thing requiring it in
> >>> F20 gold - calligra-krita, by way of libQtGTL - has already been updated
> >>> to Obsolete OpenGTL.  As far as I know OpenGTL is the only such package
> >>> we have requiring LLVM 3.3, so the rest of the rebase should just be a
> >>> matter of updating to match F21.
> >>>
> >>> The following source packages will also be updated for the llvm rebase:
> >>>
> >>> dragonegg
> >>> gambas3
> >>> pocl
> >>> pure
> >>> python-llvmpy
> >>>
> >>> If there are no serious objections I'll try to get this all into testing
> >>> early next week.  If you _do_ happen to be using OpenGTL for something
> >>> in F20, now would be an excellent time for you to start working on
> >>> porting it to current LLVM.
> >>
> >> I can absolutely see the reasons for doing this, but...can it at least
> >> go through a fesco rubber stamp? Let's face it, entirely deprecating a
> >> library we shipped as part of the gold release seems to be a pretty
> >> flagrant violation of the update policy, and really ought to be granted
> >> a formal exception at the very least if it's going to go ahead.
> >>
> >> "As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a stable
> >> release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features,
> >> particularly when those features would materially affect the user or
> >> developer experience."
> >> "ABI changes in general are very strongly discouraged"
> >>
> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Stable_Releases
> >>
> >> Fedora *is* a platform, not just a set of packages, however half-assedly
> >> we conform to that vision, so I guess I just feel a bit uncomfortable
> >> not at least putting up a few hoops for this to jump through. :)
> >
> >   This patch may be useful:
> > https://abf.rosalinux.ru/openmandriva/opengtl/blob/master/opengtl-0.9.18-llvm-3.4.patch
> 
> If that works we should probably use it for F20 to avoid retiring a
> package mid release.

+1

And yep, it should go to FESCo - this has much more bigger scope than 10.0.3
due to LLVM update. You know I'm more than ok with updates to Fn-1 but this
one should be coordinated very well.

Jaroslav

> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct