brooks
2
Was it intentional that the path for clang includes remains lib/clang/14.0.1/include?
Probably off topic for 14, but the churn in this path is kind of annoying in the FreeBSD base system because we maintain a list of obsolete paths effectively forever. I’m not entirely convinced the release version in the path is useful at all given there isn’t support for installing the rest of the compiler bits multiple times at the same prefix. If we are going to keep it I wonder if we shouldn’t be using just major or major.minor rather than the whole thing,
1 Like
Yeah, I think the version hasn’t been updated correctly.
cc @tstellar
I think the 14.0.2 should be removed
This has happened before with the release candidates. How big of a problem will this be? I was thinking it was OK to leave it an fix it in 14.0.3 in 2 weeks. I also proposed a CI job to check the version going forward: ⚙ D124539 workflows: Add a test to ensure that the LLVM version is correct
I think using the major version only in the path was proposed before, but I can’t find the thread. I think it would be good to start another discussion about this, because it’s also been an issue for us in Fedora.
brooks
6
I can either skip 14.0.2 (after all, it’s only two weeks and I don’t currently have users with specific complaints addressed by the release) or work around this issue in the build system.
On the Debian/Ubuntu, this cannot be uploaded, it will break too many things.
I will have either patches it to update or wait for 14.0.3
brooks
8
After reading over the 14.0.1 version bump commit (bd8dc965cff14115415f18d7dc8922f806f7a93a) I realized that for the FreeBSD port (which doesn’t include runtimes over than sanitizers) all I needed to do was add -DLLVM_VERSION_PATCH=2 to the cmake arguments. Nominally lit will have the wrong version but I don’t think it matters so I’m not going to patch it for a single version.
Any preferences about how to resolve this? I was originally thinking it was small enough impact that we could just wait 2 weeks for 14.0.3, but now it sounds like the Windows builds are having problems: We have either do 14.0.3 right away or wait and do it in 2 weeks as scheduled.
Should we do 14.0.3 immediately and drop 14.0.2 from the release page or just wait?
My preference would be to release 14.0.3 directly. So the fixes are out faster and we don’t get two weeks of people asking where 14.0.2 went.
1 Like
I’m leaning towards doing this too. I’ll plan to do this later today unless someone has a good reason not to.
1 Like