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 like
-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 3
-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
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
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
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
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 features
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
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
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 be
-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 build
-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 the
12 matches
Mail list logo
