From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Sun Sep 22 12:23:02 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 DB9B6FFDC8 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46bmnL5X4Nz3FT5 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id BDB8DFFDC7; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +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 BD807FFDC6 for ; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (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 "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46bmnL4XDJz3FT4; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id 7AF733782; Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: Warner Losh Cc: FreeBSD X11 Subject: Re: llvm90 -why References: <20190922051624.4a628733@dismail.de> <20190922102528.63ab9df0@dismail.de> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 14:22:58 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Warner Losh's message of "Sun, 22 Sep 2019 13:13:20 +0200") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:23:02 -0000 Warner Losh writes: > On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 12:50 PM Jan Beich wrote: > >> Vasily Postnicov writes: >> >> > =D0=B2=D1=81, 22 =D1=81=D0=B5=D0=BD=D1=82. 2019 =D0=B3., 13:25 ajtiM v= ia freebsd-x11 < >> freebsd-x11@freebsd.org>: >> > >> >> On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 12:22:21 +0200 >> >> Jan Beich wrote: >> >> >> >> > ajtiM via freebsd-x11 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 o= ne >> >> > > 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 thi= s, > 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 ki= nd > 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 23078= 9. 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.