Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 17:04:47 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: gecko@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 239682] Default to devel/llvm90 when libLLVM/libclang are required or if /usr/bin/clang is not enough Message-ID: <bug-239682-21738-tJkspPx1Pt@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-239682-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-239682-21738@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239682 --- Comment #31 from Jan Beich <jbeich@FreeBSD.org> --- (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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-239682-21738-tJkspPx1Pt>