Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:22:58 +0200 From: Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: FreeBSD X11 <x11@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: llvm90 -why Message-ID: <woe0-a5b1-wny@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfr-4aRAC4==-Dcy8hFgWgkGuADp9URArnutjJBWajzRMA@mail.gmail.com> (Warner Losh's message of "Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:13:20 %2B0200") References: <20190922051624.4a628733@dismail.de> <h854-iqaq-wny@FreeBSD.org> <20190922102528.63ab9df0@dismail.de> <CADnZ6BnuX=sE_53-9bVLqga4XEznj8mYUf5QDBVsx=XCciRV%2BA@mail.gmail.com> <zhiw-haes-wny@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfr-4aRAC4==-Dcy8hFgWgkGuADp9URArnutjJBWajzRMA@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 12:50 PM Jan Beich <jbeich@freebsd.org> wrote: > >> Vasily Postnicov <shamaz.mazum@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > вс, 22 сент. 2019 г., 13:25 ajtiM via freebsd-x11 < >> freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>: >> > >> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:22:21 +0200 >> >> Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> > ajtiM via freebsd-x11 <freebsd-x11@freebsd.org> writes: >> >> > >> >> > > Hi! >> >> > > >> >> > > Mesa-dri is updated and needs llvm90. It is okay. But libosmesa >> >> > > needs llvm80. Now I have llvm60, llvm80 and llvm90 and and each one >> >> > > needs a lot of time to build. >> >> > > >> >> > > pkg info -r llvm80 >> >> > > llvm80-8.0.1.: >> >> > > libosmesa >> >> > >> >> > I didn't notice, and poudriere doesn't catch such issues. >> >> > Fixed in https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/512572 >> >> >> >> Thank you. >> > >> > What's worse, lang/clover was not updated and still seems to require >> > llvm80, but devel/libclc now depends on llvm90. This breaks OpenCL on amd >> > cards completely >> >> lang/clover doesn't build with llvm90, see >> https://reviews.freebsd.org/P294 >> I'm relying on users' feedback as the maintainer didn't help test bug >> 239682. >> >> Can you document OpenCL error for posterity? >> > > The week before quarterly branch is the wrong time to do changes like this, > especially since there's now collateral damage that needs to be mopped up > by many other people who have not planned the time for the work. This is > quite disrespectful of their time and boarders on abuse. Please consider > this more carefully in the future. You do good technical work, but failing > to manage the social aspects of it is causing too much friction of the kind > that (a) can be avoided and (b) tends to drive people away (hence my abuse > comment). Bug 239682 was filed ~1.5 months ago. It was part of my dogfood: tested via poudriere on all release/architecture tuples. Only x11@ wasn't ready. I'm happy to kick x11@ from LLVM_DEFAULT train per the promise in bug 230789. The time of landing was planned in advance. 1 week is enough to fix loose ends in ports/. /quarterly branches are not frozen, regression fixes can be backported if necessary. And I'm not running away from regressions. It's the same workflow I use when updating ports with hundreds of consumers e.g., boost, ffmpeg, icu. As for "social aspects" I'm not a friend but a fellow contributor. Document rules/policies properly. If one relies on stuff discussed behind closed doors it's no different from hazing i.e., doesn't belong in an open project.home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?woe0-a5b1-wny>