On Mon, 2012-11-19 at 08:09 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
[...]
> There's now a rebuild of LLVM 3.1 for F17:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=367092
The choice about what should be provided should be tagged
- "Fast Moving Development" example boost libraries
i lik
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/17/2012 12:41 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:32 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
>> I guess for that it doesn't help that only one of the 4
>> llvm-libs shared libraries (libLLVM-3.*.so) has the version in
>> its name, the other
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 feature
On 11/16/2012 10:13 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Sending this to the relevant package owners as well as the development
> list - if there's too much pushback, I'll look at backporting the
> patches instead, though given that LLVM 3.2 is scheduled for release
> next month, if we agree, going
Adam Jackson wrote:
> This would actually make it easier to keep updated Mesa in older
> releases. Right now if we backport Mesa 9 to F17 we'd have to disable
> the radeonsi driver as it requires >= llvm 3.1.
Good to hear that you're also in favor of this (since some people had voiced
concerns a
Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> ps has John Palmieri left Red Hat?
As far as I know, yes, he has.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/11/2012 21:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:13 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>
>> Sending this to the relevant package owners as well as the
>> development list - if there's too much pushback, I'll look at
>> backporting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 16/11/2012 22:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:49:19AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> That said, llvm consumers are difficult to keep in sync with
>> llvm anyway. Many llvm projects seem like they pick a point
>> release to buil
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:32 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I guess for that it doesn't help that only one of the 4 llvm-libs
> shared libraries (libLLVM-3.*.so) has the version in its name, the other
> 3 clearly dependent on that one don't, eventhough I very much doubt they
> are anywhere close to
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:49:19AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> That said, llvm consumers are difficult to keep in sync with llvm
> anyway. Many llvm projects seem like they pick a point release to build
> against and then never get updated when the ABI changes. If we do this
> we might want to s
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 16:13 +0700, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Sending this to the relevant package owners as well as the development
> list - if there's too much pushback, I'll look at backporting the
> patches instead, though given that LLVM 3.2 is scheduled for release
> next month, if we a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
While in the past I've shied away from bumping the LLVM version
shipping with a Fedora release, it appears that there are enough users
using Clang++ that the post-release breakage that happens when
gcc-c++/libstdc++ is updated is really a chro
13 matches
Mail list logo
