[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #17 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Unfortunately, the upcoming 0.4 version of Julia does not work with 3.4, in which MCJIT was introduced and wasn't very stable IIUC. Upstream is not very keen on continuing to support five different LLVM APIs, and since it's not tested during continuous integration is breaks frequently. Thanks for your offer to review. I'll rebase my llvm33 package on llvm34 and post the result here soon. The current package already builds in Rawhide when disabling everything except the libraries, which is what I need. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #14 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Once you have llvm34.spec it should be pretty trivial to tweak it to llvm33. You can give it a try locally first. :) Assuming you don't need clang? (I still vote for calling this llvm33;) Are there any other packages with '.' in their name (without a '-')? Anyway since we already have llvm34 it seems more consistent use to llvm33. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #12) The Haskell compiler has done the same recently with LLVM 3.4, for the very same reason: Yeah I we probably need llvm35 too for ghc-7.10 Jens, Mukundan: could you comment on your experience with packaging llvm3.4? Once you have llvm34.spec it should be pretty trivial to tweak it to llvm33. You can give it a try locally first. :) You can't see llvm34? (comment 11) (I still vote for calling this llvm33;) Are there any other packages with '.' in their name (without a '-')? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #15 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Actually, I already have an llvm3.3 package ready for a long time, which I can rename to llvm33. I was more asking for your opinion about having another versioned-LLVM package in Fedora, since anyway I'd need support to get this review request accepted. I don't need clang, and indeed I realized the build fails if I enable it in 64-bit Rawhide (but not in other versions). Is that expected? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #16 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #13) You can't see llvm34? (comment 11) Ugh, that should have read You can't *use* llvm34? (Since you mentioned that version in version 11.) (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #15) Actually, I already have an llvm3.3 package ready for a long time, which I can rename to llvm33. I was more asking for your opinion about having another versioned-LLVM package in Fedora, since anyway I'd need support to get this review request accepted. I don't see any problem with having llvm33 in Fedora if it is needed. (llvm34 seems to be working just fine and I haven't had to update it.) I don't need clang, and indeed I realized the build fails if I enable it in 64-bit Rawhide (but not in other versions). Is that expected? I removed all the clang and other misc subpackaging from llvm34.spec which simplifies the packaging a lot. I think it is a lot more work to package the whole of llvm+clang etc as llvmXY. Does your current package actually build then? My personal recommendation would be to just rebase llvm33.spec off llvm34.spec - if you do that I am happy to help review it. I think that should just work (ie more or less just changing the version number etc should be enough.:) I appreciate this submission pre-dates llvm34, but nevertheless llvm34 is a newer version of llvm than llvm33 and I think it is better to keep the packaging of these two packages as close as possible to ease maintainence and avoid potential problems and extra work. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW CC||nonamed...@gmail.com Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords||Reopened -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #12 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- I'd like to raise this issue again. Julia has been FTBFS for several weeks in Rawhide because of the update to LLVM 3.6. Clearly the current strategy isn't viable if we want a working Julia in Fedora in the future. I'd like to include llvm3.3 in Rawhide/F23 in order to be able to get Julia working again. The Haskell compiler has done the same recently with LLVM 3.4, for the very same reason: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1161014 Jens, Mukundan: could you comment on your experience with packaging llvm3.4? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed||2014-08-28 03:27:33 --- Comment #11 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- I'm going to use LLVM 3.4, Julia developers are willing to backport fixes to support it, and LLVM 3.5. Let's hope it will work for future releases. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #10 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- As I said in the description: This package is just a modification of the llvm package version 3.3 which was included in F20. All paths have been changed to include the version, so that they do not conflict with other LLVM packages. The only exceptions are the -devel packages, which need to conflict since they determine with LLVM compilers will use. -devel packages need to conflict since usually programs call llvm-config to determine which version of LLVM should be used when building. If they did not conflict, they would have to be adapted to call a special versioned llvm-config. I don't think this is a problem since you can easily remove llvm-devel without removing many dependencies. For a Julia package, see http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/nalimilan/julia/ (details on Bug 1040517) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ndbeck...@gmail.com --- Comment #7 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com --- I tried building, but install conflicts: rpmbuild --rebuild ~/llvm3.3-3.3-1.fc20.src.rpm ... sudo yum install ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm [sudo] password for nbecker: Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, langpacks, merge-conf, refresh-packagekit Repository google-chrome is listed more than once in the configuration Examining /home/nbecker/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm: llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 Marking /home/nbecker/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm to be installed Resolving Dependencies -- Running transaction check --- Package llvm3.3-devel.x86_64 0:3.3-1.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: llvm3.3(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc20 for package: llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile * fedora: mirror.metrocast.net * rpmfusion-free: mirror.us.leaseweb.net * rpmfusion-free-updates: mirror.us.leaseweb.net * rpmfusion-nonfree: mirror.us.leaseweb.net * rpmfusion-nonfree-updates: mirror.espoch.edu.ec * updates: mirror.metrocast.net -- Running transaction check --- Package llvm3.3.x86_64 0:3.3-1.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Dependency: llvm3.3-libs(x86-64) = 3.3-1.fc20 for package: llvm3.3-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 -- Processing Dependency: libLLVM-3.3.so()(64bit) for package: llvm3.3-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 -- Running transaction check --- Package llvm3.3-libs.x86_64 0:3.3-1.fc20 will be installed -- Processing Conflict: llvm3.3-devel-3.3-1.fc20.x86_64 conflicts llvm-devel -- Finished Dependency Resolution Error: llvm3.3-devel conflicts with llvm-devel-3.4-6.fc20.x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||or...@cora.nwra.com --- Comment #8 from Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com --- It's not uncommon for -devel packages of this sort to conflict with the main package. Nice to avoid if possible (haven't looked), but shouldn't be considered a blocker I think. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #9 from Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com --- Makes it hard to build julia. Is there a julia build f20 x86_64 available for me to try? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #6 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5) (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because LLVM API is never stable. Well, it really depends on how Fedora's and Julia's schedules interact in the future. It depends on Julia itself, actually. Well, it depends on what version of Julia we want in each Fedora release, and on whether the LLVM maintainers in Fedora want to upgrade it in stable releases or not. But OTOH when backporting a new LLVM version to a published Fedora release, it's likely that Julia will break as there will likely be some lag between LLVM's and Julia's releases. I don't think you need to update julia for each Fedora release, we need to keep something stable. Sure. But for example in F20 LLVM was updated from 3.3 to 3.4, which would have been a problem if Julia had been included in that release. So even if I keep Julia stable, which is perfectly possible, LLVM maintainers need to be OK with keeping it stable too (and they may have good reasons not to want this). With an unstable API like LLVM's, versioned parallel-installable packages are kind of inevitable. Still not a good reason. If something can't be considered stable, you'd better package it in copr first. What, move LLVM out of Fedora? :-) It's not Julia which is unstable, it's LLVM. And I guess it's fine. In such cases it is frequent to allow several versions to be parallel-installable, just like GTK2 and GTK3 live together for years in Fedora. (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? Yes, the next version will use LLVM 3.5. (Support for 3.4 is almost present already, but there are a few bugs and it has not been tested thoroughly enough that the developers feel confident to use it now.) Oh, so llvm3.5 will appear in review queue again? What about 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 etc.? I can't tell for sure. I can ask Julia developers to try to remain very close to upstream LLVM. They already do that, but they decided to skip 3.4 since it didn't bring much benefit while 3.5 was more interesting. They can probably avoid doing that in the future if distributions need it. But again, if LLVM maintainers want to update it right after the release in a stable Fedora release, the same situation is going to happen. But what's the problem with including llvm3.X in parallel with llvm? The packaging work has already been done, the code is tested, and it adds additional stability for packages and users who may need it. Julia is not the only package which would have found it useful; for example, it seems that ghc only supports 3.3 too (cf. bug 1049057). The other strategy is to use Software Collections: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049057#c6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #4 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- Bump! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #3) (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because LLVM API is never stable. Well, it really depends on how Fedora's and Julia's schedules interact in the future. It depends on Julia itself, actually. But OTOH when backporting a new LLVM version to a published Fedora release, it's likely that Julia will break as there will likely be some lag between LLVM's and Julia's releases. I don't think you need to update julia for each Fedora release, we need to keep something stable. With an unstable API like LLVM's, versioned parallel-installable packages are kind of inevitable. Still not a good reason. If something can't be considered stable, you'd better package it in copr first. (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? Yes, the next version will use LLVM 3.5. (Support for 3.4 is almost present already, but there are a few bugs and it has not been tested thoroughly enough that the developers feel confident to use it now.) Oh, so llvm3.5 will appear in review queue again? What about 3.6, 3.7, 3.8 etc.? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #3 from Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #1) Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because LLVM API is never stable. Well, it really depends on how Fedora's and Julia's schedules interact in the future. With some luck, when a new Fedora release goes out, Julia will happen to use the latest LLVM version, and we won't need a versioned llvm package. But OTOH when backporting a new LLVM version to a published Fedora release, it's likely that Julia will break as there will likely be some lag between LLVM's and Julia's releases. With an unstable API like LLVM's, versioned parallel-installable packages are kind of inevitable. (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? Yes, the next version will use LLVM 3.5. (Support for 3.4 is almost present already, but there are a few bugs and it has not been tested thoroughly enough that the developers feel confident to use it now.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Does Julia upstream have any plans to move to llvm-3.4 btw? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 Milan Bouchet-Valat nalimi...@club.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1040517 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1040517 [Bug 1040517] Review Request: julia - High-level, high-performance dynamic language for technical computing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1109390] Review Request: llvm3.3 - Versioned LLVM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390 --- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me --- Per your strategy, will there come llvm3.4, llvm3.5 in the future? Because LLVM API is never stable. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
