Subject: [alpine-devel] Planning for 3.10 release

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:28:25 +0200

Hi,

I would like to make 3.10 release in the beginning of May, so I would
like to share what the plan is to get there.

We need to start the 3.10 build servers as soon as possible. Before we
do that we need to have a "feature" freeze of the toolchain and core
components. This means, gcc version, musl libc, binutils, make etc. If
those need upgrade, then we need to do so *now*.

I think we probably also need to upgrade python 3.7, which is a major
project.

After that we need to freeze all the other build tools and compilers,
like go, rust, clang etc.

Things that I would like to have included in 3.10:
- python 3.7
- at least one more architecture for rust.
- update the other languages that uses llvm and try get rid of old llvm.
- openjdk9 and openjdk10?
- move ceph to community

Are there anything else we should try squeeze in?

Are there any other ABI breaking upgrades that requires lots of
rebuilds? We should try prioritize those too.

We should also try fix as many bugs as possible.

It would be nice if someone could help me look over the bug tracker and
identify what issues should be prioritized for 3.10 and mark those as
"High" priority.

Thanks!

-nc

---
Unsubscribe:  [email-masked]
Help:         [email-masked]
---

---

From: Taner Tas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:55:08 +0300

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 17:28:25 +0200

> Are there anything else we should try squeeze in?

Bind-9.12 will be EOL in June. I think 3.10 must be shipped with Bind-9.14.
Maybe Samba 4.10 (or 4.9.5) too.

Regards.

--
Taner Tas

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:57:16 +0200

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 22:55:08 +0300

> Maybe Samba 4.10 (or 4.9.5) too.

agree. bind should not be that problematic. samba upgrade may require
some work. I remember spending days to get the subpackages correct.

Maybe you could add tickets for those on bugs.alpinelinux.org? To
reduce the risk of forgetting.

-nc

---

---

From: Alba Pompeo <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 21:07:59 -0300

texlive failed to build after poppler upgrade and instead of getting
fixed ir was thrown into unmaintained.
https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/commit/?id=80dfd3bc0b8abf08e612cf47b25b0564fdb04173
I hope it gets back into community before 3.10 release if possible.
In case the decision is to fully drop support, please post notice on
the release notes.

---

---

From: Leonardo Arena <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2019 07:24:28 +0200

We have one dev working on it. Hopefully should be back in community in time.

Thanks!

---

From: "Francesco Colista" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:32:42 +0000

> Are there anything else we should try squeeze in?

Any plan to promote wireguard from testing to community?

> rebuilds? We should try prioritize those too.

qt5 from 5.12.1 to 5.12.2.

Thanks!

.: Francesco Colista
.: Alpine Linux Core Dev Team

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:42:29 +0200

On Wed, 03 Apr 2019 18:32:42 +0000

> Any plan to promote wireguard from testing to community?

that is a good question. Let us bring that up again once the 3.10
builders are up and running.
 
> qt5 from 5.12.1 to 5.12.2.

that will not break ABI, but would be nice to have updated before 3.10
release.

-nc

---

---

From: "A. Wilcox" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 14:57:15 -0500

On 04/03/19 13:42, Natanael Copa wrote:
> that will not break ABI

It sure will.

At least qt-creator, plasma (for pmOS) and a few other packages require
full rebuilds after any minor version bump of Qt; even patchlevel.

--arw

-- 
A. Wilcox (awilfox)
Project Lead, Adélie Linux
https://www.adelielinux.org

---

From: Chloe Kudryavtsev <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:58:37 -0400

> - at least one more architecture for rust.

+1

> - update the other languages that uses llvm and try get rid of old llvm.

+1

> Are there anything else we should try squeeze in?

I would really like to squeeze in GCC 9 (with D support, which has 
landed in it).
However, 9.1 is releasing "imminently" (expected mid-April, about 12 P1 
bugs left).
In the case that we don't think we can squeeze it into 3.10, I'd like to 
put it on record here (so we remember it for 3.11).

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 19:05:12 +0200

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 12:58:37 -0400

> However, 9.1 is releasing "imminently" (expected mid-April, about 12 P1 

I don't think we should wait for that. It may be delayed, and gcc
upgrades has traditionally caused build failures for various packages
so lots of work will be needed to troubleshoot and report bugs upstream.

We may want upgrade to gcc 9 soon after 3.10 release though.

-nc

---

---

From: Milan P. Stanić <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:08:21 +0200

On Wed, 2019-04-03 at 17:28, Natanael Copa wrote:
[...]
> - at least one more architecture for rust.

Current state with llvm deters me to try to make clean and canonical
APKBUILD and patches for aarch64 and armv7 (maybe ppc64)  and I wait
till this (llvm status) will be solved.

To note, I have rust apk's for Alpine aarch64 and armv7 but they are not
canonical Alpine packages but I build with them some application like
firefox and some smaller, although didn't managed to build everything I
tried but didn't tried hard enough, probably.

If anyone have experience with building rust on aarch64 and armv7 please
reply to this mail here (or in private, however you like) and I'm ready
to share all my work on it, give it to someone more experienced, team
work or whatever.

-- 
regards 

---

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:47:46 +0200

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:08:21 +0200

> till this (llvm status) will be solved.

What is the issue with llvm? Is it tracked some where? is there a PR
for it?
 
> tried but didn't tried hard enough, probably.

That is great news. Then there is hope to have both aarch64 and armv7
support at least.
 
> If anyone have experience with building rust on aarch64 and armv7
> please reply to this mail here (or in private, however you like) and
> I'm ready to share all my work on it, give it to someone more
> experienced, team work or whatever.

---

---

From: Milan P. Stanić <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 12:38:37 +0200

[ no need for Cc, I'm subscribed to list ]

> What is the issue with llvm? Is it tracked some where? is there a PR

https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/6071
community/rust: upgrade to 1.32.0

and
https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/6071#pullrequestreview-216341671
excerpt from this:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm trying to build rust with it and if everything ok, I will update
this pull request with llvm7
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't follow github much, so I'm not sure what all that means. Is the
llvm7 upgraded and built with mentioned patches?

Rust is still 1.31.1 version in aports but,
https://github.com/alpinelinux/aports/pull/6892
looks like llvm7 is patched/fixed.

Anyway, I will try to build rust 1.32.0 on x86_64 to see if this part is
solved and fixed.
  
> That is great news. Then there is hope to have both aarch64 and armv7

I can build it with llvm6 but have some issue with 'abuild rootpkg'
which I don't understand quite well, and need help about that.
I can (maybe I will) build log somewhere if anyone are willing to review
and give suggestions or any help.

-- 
regards

---

---

From: Simon Frankenberger <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:24:14 +0200

> - openjdk9 and openjdk10?

From my side that's no problem and I'd really appreciate it. Openjdk9 is
already in testing and seems to run stable, Openjdk10 PR is opened and
OpenJDK11 is ready, but waiting for 10 to get merged.

The only issue with these packages is that they only build on 64 bit
arches natively, although cross-compiling seems to work without problems.

So, OpenJDK 9+10 (and most probably 11) builds fine on s390x, aarch64,
x86_64 and ppce64le (as far as I can see), but x86, armhf and armv7 fail
and I don't know why.

I'm currently trying to get the build running for at least x86, but for
the other arches I'm not sure what's happening there and how to fix /
debug it. My "infrastructure" is basicaly a bunch of shell scripts with
qemu-static binfmt emulation and there it works.

@Natanael: If you're OK to have java only for 64 bit (for now) then lets
get 9+10+11 into community asap :)

Thanks,
Simon

---

From: Natanael Copa <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:45:19 +0200

On Wed, 3 Apr 2019 20:24:14 +0200
 
> get 9+10+11 into community asap :)

I think that makes sense. I think we only add 64bit and can evaluate
when/if someone ask for 32bit.

-nc

---

---

From: Tuan Hoang <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:17:48 +0200

Thank you for the tremendous effort.

openjdk is such a monster, especially to build repeatedly. And/or
cross-building ...

Tuan

---