FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-15-2008, 07:51 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:

Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake
2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The
bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a
good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone*
unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.



2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459243

At some point we're going to be holding back new stuff more than we are
breaking existing stuff, but I don't know when that point will be.
2.6.X has been in rawhide since Mar 28 so it's been beaten on for a while.


Any other comments?

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-15-2008, 09:16 PM
"Bryan O'Sullivan"
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> wrote:

> 2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459243

There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a
stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why.
I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager,
but why can't it wait until F10?

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-15-2008, 09:24 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:
> There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a
> stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why.
> I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager,
> but why can't it wait until F10?

We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more
and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in
the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-15-2008, 09:35 PM
Ben Boeckel
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

On Friday 15 August 2008 02:23:35 pm Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> > I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have
> > any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are
> > generally easily fixed.
>
> Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake
> 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The
> bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a
> good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone*
> unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.

Why should Fedora care about Second Life? It is neither in the repos nor Free
Software. You can just not upgrade cmake if it breaks your setup too badly.
Some need features in cmake 2.6 to move forward. Fedora should not stand still
for non-Free Software.

As for breakage in other apps, they can be fixed and sent upstream by
maintainers or other volunteers. It wouldn't be pushed without testing in any
case. If koji gets failed builds due to dependencies, it usually gets posted to
the list.

--Ben

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-15-2008, 09:49 PM
Ben Boeckel
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

On Friday 15 August 2008 05:35:05 pm Ben Boeckel wrote:
> On Friday 15 August 2008 02:23:35 pm Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com>
wrote:
> > > I've gotten a request to update cmake to 2.6 in F-9. Does anyone have
> > > any objections? There can be some slight incompatibilities, but are
> > > generally easily fixed.
> >
> > Yes, I object. It has some substantial incompatibilities with cmake
> > 2.4.8 that break some of the software I work on (Second Life). The
> > bugs in question are fixed in 2.6.1, but I don't think it would be a
> > good idea to build and push that, either: you'll break *someone*
> > unexpectedly, and they won't be reading this list until it's too late.
>
> Why should Fedora care about Second Life? It is neither in the repos nor
> Free Software. You can just not upgrade cmake if it breaks your setup too
> badly. Some need features in cmake 2.6 to move forward. Fedora should not
> stand still for non-Free Software.
>
> As for breakage in other apps, they can be fixed and sent upstream by
> maintainers or other volunteers. It wouldn't be pushed without testing in
> any case. If koji gets failed builds due to dependencies, it usually gets
> posted to the list.
>
> --Ben

I missed something: Second Life /is/ open source (I hadn't found a link for the
source on the downloads page and assumed from there). However, the not
upgrading still applies if it breaks your build (and 2.6.1 fixes this in any
case it seems).

--Ben

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-16-2008, 06:54 PM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Orion Poplawski wrote:

> 2.6.1 is what would be pushed. The request is here:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=459243
>
> At some point we're going to be holding back new stuff more than we are
> breaking existing stuff, but I don't know when that point will be.
> 2.6.X has been in rawhide since Mar 28 so it's been beaten on for a while.
>
> Any other comments?

hotness is required here, imo, as cmake-2.6.x is required for any upstream kde/trunk development.

-- Rex



--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-16-2008, 09:18 PM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Rex Dieter wrote:
hotness is required here, imo, as cmake-2.6.x is required for any upstream kde/trunk development.


True, but to play devil's advocate, those that are affected can always
install cmake from rawhide (like I've done). I'd sure be *happy* to see
2.6 pushed to F9, but I'm also not bothered if it doesn't happen.


--
Matthew
ENOWIT: .sig file for this machine not set up yet

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-24-2008, 02:29 AM
"Michel Salim"
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:
>> There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a
>> stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why.
>> I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager,
>> but why can't it wait until F10?
>
> We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more
> and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in
> the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.
>
Will KDE 4.2 be pushed into F-9, though? I understand the rationale
for upgrading F-9's KDE to 4.1, but 4.2?

Regards,

--
Michel Salim
http://hircus.jaiku.com/

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-24-2008, 11:25 AM
Rex Dieter
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Michel Salim wrote:

> Will KDE 4.2 be pushed into F-9, though? I understand the rationale
> for upgrading F-9's KDE to 4.1, but 4.2?

A definite maybe (and more likely than not), but we haven't planned that far ahead yet.

-- Rex


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 08-25-2008, 04:00 PM
Matthew Woehlke
 
Default Pushing cmake 2.6 to F9

Michel Salim wrote:

On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:

Bryan O'Sullivan <bos <at> serpentine.com> writes:

There are periodic threads about how pushing the new hotness to a
stable release is a bad idea. This seems like a clear-cut case of why.
I can understand the fellow's desire to package his window manager,
but why can't it wait until F10?

We'll also need cmake 2.6 to push KDE 4.2 ~6 months from now. And there's more
and more stuff requiring 2.6 already (which is why the upgrade was requested in
the first place). So IMHO the sooner it gets into F9, the better.


Will KDE 4.2 be pushed into F-9, though? I understand the rationale
for upgrading F-9's KDE to 4.1, but 4.2?


Speaking of... where *is* KDE 4.1 for F9? Is it not in the system yet?
All I see seems to be 4.0.5.


--
Matthew
Person A: It's an ISO standard.
Person B: ...And that means what?
--mal (http://theangryadmin.blogspot.com/2008/04/future.html)

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org