PR#222: Add clang-devel(major) provides - rpms/clang

rpms / clang

#222 Add clang-devel(major) provides

Merged 4 months ago by tuliom. Opened 5 months ago by mystro256.

rpms/ mystro256/clang rawhide into rawhide

Jeremy Newton • 5 months ago

46db673

clang.spec

file modified

+5 -1

		`@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@`

		`Name: %pkg_name`
		`Version: %{clang_version}%{?rc_ver:~rc%{rc_ver}}%{?llvm_snapshot_version_suffix:~%{llvm_snapshot_version_suffix}}`
		`- Release: 1%{?dist}`
		`+ Release: 2%{?dist}`
		`Summary: A C language family front-end for LLVM`

		`License: Apache-2.0 WITH LLVM-exception OR NCSA`
		`@@ -216,6 +216,7 @@`
		`# The clang CMake files reference tools from clang-tools-extra.`
		`Requires: %{name}-tools-extra%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}`
		`%endif`
		`+ Provides: %{name}-devel(major) = %{maj_ver}`

		`%description devel`
		`Development header files for clang.`
		`@@ -623,6 +624,9 @@`
		`%changelog`
		`%{?llvm_snapshot_changelog_entry}`

		`+ * Mon Dec 18 2023 Jeremy Newton <alexjnewt at hotmail dot com> - 17.0.6-2`
		`+ - Add clang-devel(major) provides`
		`+`
		`* Tue Nov 28 2023 Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom@redhat.com> - 17.0.6-1`
		`- Update to LLVM 17.0.6`

mystro256 commented 5 months ago

When building ROCm components, we need to pull in specific llvm and
clang devel package versions. This add clang-devel(major) in the style
of llvm-devel(major), as they can be used as a build requires.

mystro256 commented 5 months ago

@tstellar @tuliom

rebased onto 46db673

5 months ago

zuul commented 5 months ago

Build succeeded.
https://fedora.softwarefactory-project.io/zuul/buildset/8589f9bdeee14acfa9be782287f96928

check-for-arches : SUCCESS in 2m 13s
check-for-eln : SUCCESS in 17s
eln-rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 2h 39m 15s
rpm-scratch-build : SUCCESS in 2h 44m 42s
rpm-scratch-build-s390x : SUCCESS in 2h 49m 35s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-ppc64le : SUCCESS in 1h 49m 02s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-i686 : SUCCESS in 2h 17m 42s (non-voting)
rpm-scratch-build-aarch64 : SUCCESS in 1h 32m 04s (non-voting)
rpm-linter : FAILURE in 9m 01s (non-voting)
rpm-rpminspect : TIMED_OUT in 31m 30s (non-voting)
check-for-sti-tests : SUCCESS in 15s
check-for-fmf-tests : SUCCESS in 15s
rpm-install-test : SUCCESS in 2m 59s
rpm-tmt-test : SUCCESS in 34m 12s
Skipped 1 job

kkleine commented 5 months ago

@mystro256 thank you for this PR. For how long do you want to depend on a specific version of Clang?

mystro256 commented 5 months ago

So I've been working with upstream, and they said they can lag 3-6 months at most depending on development cycles.

I was having a chat with @tstellar and @tuliom, and I'm told the future goal is to keep one older version of llvm around for compatibility in fedora, so this should be fine.

The concern that came up is that ROCm requires llvm, clang, lld, and compiler-rt, but the last one isn't in scope for the compat packages.

tuliom commented 5 months ago

As discussed in our chat, this would make it easier for downstream packagers to depend on a specific clang-devel package because today compat packages and default packages have different provide names, e.g. clang-devel vs. clang16-devel.
LGTM.

tuliom commented 4 months ago

Considering the lack of objection, I'm merging this.