On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
If there are no serious objections I'll try to get this all into testing
early next week. If you _do_ happen to be using OpenGTL for something
in F20, now would be an excellent time for you to start working on
porting it to current LLVM.
On 03/29/2014 02:39 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
By way of libGL linking LLVM, if some other library uses a private LLVM, and
an application links both libGL and that library, it crashes due to symbol
conflicts.
Ah yes, that's an excellent point. Thanks Kevin!
--
Kalev
--
devel mailing list
Hi Adam,
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little awkward: the OpenGTL package only works up to LLVM
Hi
2014-03-27 21:02 GMT+01:00 Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com:
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little awkward:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 1:54 AM, Paulo César Pereira de Andrade
paulo.cesar.pereira.de.andr...@gmail.com wrote:
2014-03-27 17:40 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle
While Heisenbereg isn't the newbie friendly distro that Mint or Ubuntu are
but many new to Enterprise linux use this and that could seriously cause
some bad blood type issues with end-users I'm also for at least getting the
upstream approval for mid release modding if not FesCO
Corey W Sheldon
On 03/28/2014 04:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
RHEL's Mesa at this point links against a private build of llvm that
is explicitly _not_ part of The Platform, for exactly this reason:
it's not something we can commit to supporting for any use beyond
Mesa itself, even in the extreme short term.
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 11:21 -0400, Corey Sheldon wrote:
While Heisenbereg isn't the newbie friendly distro that Mint or Ubuntu
are but many new to Enterprise linux use this and that could seriously
cause some bad blood type issues with end-users I'm also for at least
getting the upstream
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 13:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Fedora *is* a platform, not just a set of packages, however half-assedly
we conform to that vision, so I guess I just feel a bit uncomfortable
not at least putting up a few hoops for this to jump through. :)
OpenGTL here is something
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 07:39 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
+1
And yep, it should go to FESCo - this has much more bigger scope than 10.0.3
due to LLVM update. You know I'm more than ok with updates to Fn-1 but this
one should be coordinated very
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 07:39 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
+1
And yep, it should go to FESCo - this has much more bigger scope than 10.0.3
due to LLVM update. You know I'm more than ok with updates to Fn-1 but this
one should be coordinated very well.
Can you (or anyone else) elaborate on
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 11:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
Can you (or anyone else) elaborate on the issues you're concerned with
here? If I'm going to have to play Simon Says about this I'd like some
opportunity to address (or at least investigate)
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 16:45 +0100, Kalev Lember wrote:
On 03/28/2014 04:37 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
RHEL's Mesa at this point links against a private build of llvm that
is explicitly _not_ part of The Platform, for exactly this reason:
it's not something we can commit to supporting for any
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 22:25 -0400, Jens Petersen wrote:
Hi,
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:37:24AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
It might be nice if Fedora adopted the common practice (among other OSes
with interface assurances) of at least attempting to define stability
levels. Whose action item would that be?
Agreed, and, FESCo.
--
Matthew Miller--
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 11:37:24AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
It might be nice if Fedora adopted the common practice (among other OSes
with interface assurances) of at least attempting to define stability
levels. Whose action item would that
Kalev Lember wrote:
This might be a good way forward for Fedora as well to avoid changing
the system-wide llvm ABI mid release.
No, most definitely not! Let me introduce you to our old friend, the
symbol conflict.
By way of libGL linking LLVM, if some other library uses a private LLVM, and
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little awkward: the OpenGTL package only works up to LLVM 3.3.
However, OpenGTL
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little awkward: the
2014-03-27 17:40 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Thu, 2014-03-27 at 16:02 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies
Hi,
We'd like to update to Mesa 10.1 in Fedora 20, since the cycle is so
long before F21 and (among other goodies) it enables OpenGL 3.3 on some
newer Radeons. This implies rebasing LLVM 3.4, and that's where it gets
a little awkward: the OpenGTL package only works up to LLVM 3.3.
One
21 matches
Mail list logo
