From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Fri Oct 4 17:04:48 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C34A133476 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (unknown [127.0.1.3]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46lGSw1jjxz4ZJn for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 3ABDF133474; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7FA133473 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46lGSw0tjbz4ZJm for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 01C45275A2 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x94H4lIF092658 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:47 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x94H4lDp092657 for x11@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 17:04:47 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 239682] Default to devel/llvm90 when libLLVM/libclang are required or if /usr/bin/clang is not enough Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:04:47 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:04:48 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239682 --- Comment #31 from Jan Beich --- (In reply to Brooks Davis from comment #28) > You are correct that some bugs won't be found until LLVM_DEFAULT is bumpe= d, but > doing it without coordination with me (the PR does not count) and making = the > switch the I was unavailable to respond to the reports is unacceptable. "(the PR does not count)" bit is offensive to me. In ports/ the primary way= to cooperate with each other is either via bugzilla. Other ways are too easily lost in the noise. For one, portmgr@ encourages every ports/ contributor to file a bug even for stuff submitted on phabricator. Why are you ignoring the place where the coordination happens? > I'm upset that users are getting a less than ideal experience due to > your needless rush to bump the default and worse that we've > inflicted it on the quarterly branch effectively untested. Despite watching bugzilla, maillists, freebsd forums, reddit, twitter, gitt= er everything looked fine. Now that Warner said Gnome (without giving more details) I've searched again and have found the following: https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/gnome-starts-in-black.72497/post-441133 If so (i.e., related) it implies only /quarterly users run Gnome, so the is= sue wouldn't be found by extra waiting on /latest. The fix would be to pin mesa= -dri to llvm80. Would have to be done during LLVM_DEFAULT=3D100 bump, anyway. (In reply to Warner Losh from comment #29) > Finally, the exprun for FreeBSD base has kept it from upgrading to > 9.0 because the fallout from this upgrade is too large. Let that > sink in: we can't upgrade base because llvm 9.0 is too broken. And > yet it got rushed in just before the quarterly branch. This is not > sound engineering. LLVM_DEFAULT bump is too small scale compared to base Clang upgrades. There= are only 43 consumers. I regularly touch ports with ~100 consumers, often witho= ut filing any bugs. And I've helped fixing base Clang bustage as well. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=