Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Le 12/09/2023 à 14:29, Adrian Bunk a écrit : 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). and they can jump from defaults to specific or the other way around Cheers, Sylvestre
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
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
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
On Mon, 11 Sep 2023 at 19:46:07 +0300, Timo Aaltonen wrote: > Simon McVittie kirjoitti 11.9.2023 klo 12.36: > > I've opened a Mesa bug at wishlist severity suggesting a move to version > > 16, and set it to block the bug for llvm-toolchain-15 removal (#1050070). > > The remaining blocker for this is that using llvm-16 requires a newer > bindgen, and the latest upstream version split the cli separate, so that > needs to be packaged (has been done AIUI) and processed through NEW first, > see: > > https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/-/issues/50 Does this block a general swap of the defaults from 14 to 16, or is it just a blocker for Mesa moving to 16 as a result of something Mesa-specific? Is there / does there need to be a transition tracking bug for this? Perhaps to avoid the trip through NEW it would be pragmatic to make rust-bindgen be temporarily or permanently a multiple-upstream-tarball binary package that combines the upstream projects bindgen and bindgen-cli, avoiding needing to wait for NEW on the critical path? Thanks, smcv
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Simon McVittie kirjoitti 11.9.2023 klo 12.36: 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. I've opened a Mesa bug at wishlist severity suggesting a move to version 16, and set it to block the bug for llvm-toolchain-15 removal (#1050070). smcv Hi, The remaining blocker for this is that using llvm-16 requires a newer bindgen, and the latest upstream version split the cli separate, so that needs to be packaged (has been done AIUI) and processed through NEW first, see: https://salsa.debian.org/rust-team/debcargo-conf/-/issues/50 -- t
Processed: Re: Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Processing control commands: > tags -1 = confirmed Bug #1050071 [release.debian.org] llvm-defaults: move to 16 Added tag(s) confirmed. -- 1050071: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050071 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Control: tags -1 = confirmed On 2023-09-11 11:05:40 +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 at 12:03:10 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > > And one more issue: llvm-toolchain-16 does not build python3-lldb-16 on > > mips64el, rendering python3-lldb uninstallable there. > > I think this is actually a non-issue? python3-lldb:mips64el is no longer > built from llvm-defaults/unstable (and it wasn't present in bookworm). > > There is an old python3-lldb:mips64el_1:13.0-53 binary in unstable, but > it's already uninstallable. I've opened a ftp team bug asking for it to > be removed to reduce confusion (ideally this should have been done as part > of dropping the lldb-related packages from mips64el, before bookworm). Thanks! I missed that this was a cruft binary. Sylvestre, please go ahead. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
On Sat, 09 Sep 2023 at 12:03:10 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > And one more issue: llvm-toolchain-16 does not build python3-lldb-16 on > mips64el, rendering python3-lldb uninstallable there. I think this is actually a non-issue? python3-lldb:mips64el is no longer built from llvm-defaults/unstable (and it wasn't present in bookworm). There is an old python3-lldb:mips64el_1:13.0-53 binary in unstable, but it's already uninstallable. I've opened a ftp team bug asking for it to be removed to reduce confusion (ideally this should have been done as part of dropping the lldb-related packages from mips64el, before bookworm). smcv
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
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. I've opened a Mesa bug at wishlist severity suggesting a move to version 16, and set it to block the bug for llvm-toolchain-15 removal (#1050070). smcv
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
On 2023-09-09 11:59:33 +0200, Sebastian Ramacher wrote: > On 2023-09-09 10:30:57 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > Le 31/08/2023 à 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit : > > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > > > On 2023-08-19 10:39:44 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > > Severity: normal > > > > User:release.debian@packages.debian.org > > > > Usertags: transition > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Let's upgrade llvm one more time. > > > > > > > > I am aware of mipsel and mips64el build failures. I am looking into it. > > > > llvm-defaults has been pointing to 16 in experimental for quite > > > > sometime. > > > > Opening this transition to make sure it is on your radar! :) > > > Please remove the moreinfo tag once llvm-toolchain-16 builds on > > > mips64el. > > > > Fixed! > > > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-16 > > There is another issue. llvm-defaults in experimental takes over bolt > from src:bolt. I suppose that is not intended. Please rename the binary. And one more issue: llvm-toolchain-16 does not build python3-lldb-16 on mips64el, rendering python3-lldb uninstallable there. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
On 2023-09-09 10:30:57 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Le 31/08/2023 à 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit : > > Control: tags -1 moreinfo > > > > On 2023-08-19 10:39:44 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > > > Package: release.debian.org > > > Severity: normal > > > User:release.debian@packages.debian.org > > > Usertags: transition > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > Let's upgrade llvm one more time. > > > > > > I am aware of mipsel and mips64el build failures. I am looking into it. > > > llvm-defaults has been pointing to 16 in experimental for quite sometime. > > > Opening this transition to make sure it is on your radar! :) > > Please remove the moreinfo tag once llvm-toolchain-16 builds on > > mips64el. > > Fixed! > > https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-16 There is another issue. llvm-defaults in experimental takes over bolt from src:bolt. I suppose that is not intended. Please rename the binary. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Le 31/08/2023 à 14:47, Sebastian Ramacher a écrit : Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-08-19 10:39:44 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User:release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello, Let's upgrade llvm one more time. I am aware of mipsel and mips64el build failures. I am looking into it. llvm-defaults has been pointing to 16 in experimental for quite sometime. Opening this transition to make sure it is on your radar! :) Please remove the moreinfo tag once llvm-toolchain-16 builds on mips64el. Fixed! https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=llvm-toolchain-16 Cheers Sylvestre
Processed: Re: Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Processing control commands: > tags -1 moreinfo Bug #1050071 [release.debian.org] llvm-defaults: move to 16 Added tag(s) moreinfo. -- 1050071: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1050071 Debian Bug Tracking System Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 2023-08-19 10:39:44 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > Severity: normal > User:release.debian@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hello, > > Let's upgrade llvm one more time. > > I am aware of mipsel and mips64el build failures. I am looking into it. > llvm-defaults has been pointing to 16 in experimental for quite sometime. > Opening this transition to make sure it is on your radar! :) Please remove the moreinfo tag once llvm-toolchain-16 builds on mips64el. Cheers -- Sebastian Ramacher
Bug#1050071: llvm-defaults: move to 16
Package: release.debian.org Severity: normal User:release.debian@packages.debian.org Usertags: transition Hello, Let's upgrade llvm one more time. I am aware of mipsel and mips64el build failures. I am looking into it. 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. Thanks Sylvestre title = "llvm-defaults 16"; is_affected = .build-depends ~ /\b(libclang|liblldb|llvm)-dev\b/; is_good = .depends ~ /\b(lib|)(clang|lldb|llvm)1?-?16\b/; is_bad = .depends ~ /\b(lib|)(clang|lldb|llvm)1?-?14\b/;
