fesco

#2947 FTBFS exception for llvm12
Closed: Invalid by churchyard. Opened by petersen.

Closed: Invalid
Reopen Issue

Unfortunately older llvm versions seem to be getting increasingly hard to build with the latest toolchains we have in Fedora, and more unfortunately because of this llvm11 and llvm12 packages which are still being actively used by various packages including ghc* for some archs are slated now to be retired, which would be quite bad. At least for GHC rebasing to a newer llvm is not completely trivial. Even the llvm13 package also failed to rebuild in the recent mass rebuild, but that doesn't kick in yet now... (Also llvm10 and llvm9.0 but they can probably be retired at this point.)

I am hereby requesting FESCo kindly to give approval of FTBFS exceptions for llvm11 and llvm12. If needed I can provide more details about the build failures, but I can say upfront that it is not a lot of fun... I dunno if building with clang say could help to ameliorate the situation, but that may be a non-trivial amount of work to redo.

edit: cc @tstellar

+1 for an exception for one another release cycle.

+-0 for a permanent exception, but would probably be OK if the requested time frame is longer than 1 release cycle but not indefinite.

+1 for a temporary exception.

Are there any changes happening upstream that would make this less painful in the future?

Thanks to @jjames I managed to build llvm11 already with his gcc12 patch and probably llvm12 will build with it too.
(Earlier my laptop ran out of memory while attempting to build llvm12 locally in rawhide: I think dwz was eating all the ram.)
I am also moving ghc* from llvm11 to llvm12 (aarch64) currently.

Leaving this open until I can confirm this.
Edited by petersen

I also fixed llvm13, but the llvm12 is still failing (one workaround would be to just disable its testsuite (for now at least), but Jerry James kindly offered to take a look at it. :-)

I guess the bottom line here really is that I am probably not the best person to be maintaining the older llvmXY packages - I have just been doing it since the llvm maintainer(s) wanted to retire them while they are still needed by packages in Fedora. :-(
For people with llvm knownledge it should really not be that much work to maintain the older versions just to keep them alive - mainly just been hitting some toolchain and testsuite issues, which are probably straightforward to deal with for experts I would imagine.
Edited by petersen

llvm12 has been built for f38 rawhide and now building for f37 too (along with llvm11).

So this ticket can be close now - but just leaving it open still for visibility.
Edited by petersen

Great News! I wonder if the situation around LLVM maintenance (particularly of old versions) could be improved in general? It looks like the packages are just regularly getting orphaned because they're FTBFS, maybe orphaning them more proactively would give people who need these packages more time to react?

Metadata Update from @churchyard:
- Issue close_status updated to: Invalid
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

It looks like the packages are just regularly getting orphaned because they're FTBFS

Not really, I have been actively taking them exactly to prevent them from being retired.

maybe orphaning them more proactively would give people who need these packages more time to react?

I am one of the primary users. Asking for help seemed to work though.
Metadata
None
None
None
None
None
Static archive. pagure.io was sunset in 2026; this is a read-only snapshot.
Red Hat Logo

Fedora is sponsored by Red Hat. Learn more about the relationship between Red Hat and Fedora »

© Red Hat, Inc. and others.