Dne 13. 05. 24 v 15:28 Fabio Valentini napsal(a):
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 3:23 PM Vít Ondruch <vondr...@redhat.com> wrote:Dne 27. 04. 24 v 6:58 Neal Gompa napsal(a): * Switch to python-style compat/main packages. In order to make the packaging more consistent between the main package (e.g. llvm) and the compat package (e.g. llvm18), we would retire the un-versioned dist-git for llvm, and create a new versioned dist-git for each new release (e.g. llvm19, llvm20, llvm21 etc.). We would then designate one of these as the 'main version', and that version would produce binary rpms that look like the current main package (i.e. llvm-libs instead of llvm19-libs). Ehh? I guess? I don't think this buys us that much. * Invert the order of compat/main packages. Instead of having the compat package be the old version, and the main package be the new version, we would have the compat package be newer and the main package be older. This would allow us to introduce a new version of llvm without impacting other packages that depend on the main version of LLVM. I don't like this idea, it makes things harder to reason about and doesn't actually solve any problems. I concur with Neal here. I we were living in ideal world, we would have just one `llvm` package. Since we are not living in ideal world, it makes sense to have some compat versions. But we should try to get as close as possible to ideal world. Versioning packages by default goes against that goal, because it encourages sticking to some specific version for no particular reason.For the special case of LLVM, I disagree here. Some projects are just not compatible with newer LLVM versions until upstream moves first, and that can take time. So I don't think that counts as "sticking to some specific version for no particular reason", it's "upstream doesn't support LLVM X at all yet, they only support LLVM X-1 for now". I have never seen a Fedora package that uses an LLVM compat package "for no particular reason".
My point is that we can spent time maintaining llvm00 - llvm99 packages or we can spent time adjusting upstream projects to be compatible with the latest llvm. Maintaining old versions of package might IMHO cost more then adjusting the package to new version.
Vít
Fabio -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
