On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 10:36:00AM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 at 10:39:44 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > llvm-defaults has been pointing to 16 in experimental for quite sometime. > > Opening this transition to make sure it is on your radar! :) > > > > I opened bug #1050070 & #1050069 for future removals. > > Mesa is a significant user of LLVM, and hard-codes its own non-default > version of LLVM which often runs ahead of the default (currently 15). > It seems to be relatively common for a LLVM version upgrade to cause > regressions or uninstallability on at least one architecture, and also > relatively common for a LLVM version upgrade to be necessary to unblock > features or bug fixes in Mesa, which I assume is why the Mesa maintainers > have felt the need to control this themselves. > > Should Mesa try moving to -16 *before* the default changes? It would > seem unhelpful to move the rest of the distribution to a version that > Mesa can't use for whatever reason. >...
Mesa is not the sole user of a non-default LLVM. This transition is about changing the default, which affects the packages that use the default version. Users of non-default LLVM like mesa/rustc/chromium/ghc/qt6-tools/... move at their own pace (otherwise they would use the default LLVM). > smcv cu Adrian
