Re: what's the plan with llvm-toolchain-*
Le 25/03/2022 à 22:00, Paul Gevers a écrit :
> Hi Sylvestre,
>
> On 18-10-2021 22:42, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>>> So, please share your plans with us.
>> My target is to have 2 versions for the next release. Realistically,
>> because of all the use
>> cases (ex: ghc), it is hard to have all packages focusing only one
>> version of llvm.
>
> You recently added llvm-14, we already (still) have three versions in
> testing. We're going in the wrong direction.
I think you under estimate the complexity of the problem.
I am not adding more packages because it is fun but because it is
required to keep adequate quality.
>
>> Currently, I am clearly failing at this. ;)
>> LLVM upstream is going through some significant changes in term of build
>> systems. I have been focusing
>> on bringing 12 & 13 at this level (they both have failures currently).
>>
>> Once they are green, I will work on the transition to 12 or (probably?)
>> 13 and the removal of the older.
>
> I have a proposal, let's try to control this a bit better. We have
> multiple other "systems" in Debian where we handle multiple versions
> (like Python, Ruby, ...), but I hear your "hard to have ..." problem.
> I propose:
> 0) We plan to have at most two versions of llvm in the release. Can
> you make a proposal for bookworm, which versions do you plan we will
> ship?
Sebastinas asked me the same question a few days ago.
llvm defaults is probably going to be 14 for bookworm.
We will probably have 13, 14 and 15. I hope that packages like ghc will
be able to use one of this version (this is usually the blocker).
> 1) At all times, no more than three versions of llvm in unstable and
> testing. You can upload and prepare in experimental, but uploads to
> unstable tend to raise expectations of people that they can use it.
> 2) Which means, that before a new version can be introduced, we have
> to get rid of one of old ones. If we're better at communicating the
> plan, we can be more aggressive in removing packages that don't
> migrate to one of the supported versions.
>
I wish it was that easy. It isn't about llvm itself but the packages
using it (or clang & co).
Cheers,
Sylvesre
Reply to: