~mpu/qbe

3 3

New version?

Details
Message ID
<ZPkmHE9KLohoEohE@cloudsdale.the-delta.net.eu.org>
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

Gentoo packager here.

With hare depending on the line tracking feature it would be nice to have a new version of qbe so arbitrary backports/snapshots of qbe in distros can be avoided to be able to keep hare packages up-to-date (btw hare snapshots are typically made once a month).

Best regards
Details
Message ID
<4c10c734-c022-49d6-ba5c-d940654fc907@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<ZPkmHE9KLohoEohE@cloudsdale.the-delta.net.eu.org> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

I agree that a release is overdue, especially with the important
bug fixes that landed after 1.1. The reason I've been a bit slow
to roll one out is that I want my work on IR matching to be part
of 1.2. I can't really give an ETA for this to be ready so if a
release would indeed help I'm ok to make one in the coming days.

Best.
Details
Message ID
<b7b96f76-af8a-4e8e-bd26-1a80fe6d3a86@omenos.dev>
In-Reply-To
<4c10c734-c022-49d6-ba5c-d940654fc907@app.fastmail.com> (view parent)
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On 9/11/23 3:41 AM, Quentin Carbonneaux wrote:
> I agree that a release is overdue, especially with the important
> bug fixes that landed after 1.1. The reason I've been a bit slow
> to roll one out is that I want my work on IR matching to be part
> of 1.2. I can't really give an ETA for this to be ready so if a
> release would indeed help I'm ok to make one in the coming days.

Similar to Haelwenn, I am looking to package Hare up for Fedora[0]. Due 
to Hare relying on post-v1.1 features from the master branch, the 
existing release is not sufficient. To date, I'm applying the aggregate 
diff of v1.1..master, but for packaging reasons having an actual version 
to use is preferable. Hare and harec have to live in a pre-release state 
for now as they are unversioned softwares, but if a new minor or patch 
release could be cut for qbe it would make things a bit smoother.

[0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2154514

Re: Re: New version?

Details
Message ID
<bvhz4x2f64ytodnwqypn7h5l4cd3jnid4uarc5eiin3nxtfuky@fzrzybdrt7jh>
In-Reply-To
<b7b96f76-af8a-4e8e-bd26-1a80fe6d3a86@omenos.dev> (view parent)
DKIM signature
pass
Download raw message
On Sat, Jan 06, 2024 at 05:20:37PM -0500, Mike Rochefort wrote:
> On 9/11/23 3:41 AM, Quentin Carbonneaux wrote:
> > I agree that a release is overdue, especially with the important
> > bug fixes that landed after 1.1. The reason I've been a bit slow
> > to roll one out is that I want my work on IR matching to be part
> > of 1.2. I can't really give an ETA for this to be ready so if a
> > release would indeed help I'm ok to make one in the coming days.
> 
> Similar to Haelwenn, I am looking to package Hare up for Fedora[0]. Due to
> Hare relying on post-v1.1 features from the master branch, the existing
> release is not sufficient. To date, I'm applying the aggregate diff of
> v1.1..master, but for packaging reasons having an actual version to use is
> preferable. Hare and harec have to live in a pre-release state for now as
> they are unversioned softwares, but if a new minor or patch release could be
> cut for qbe it would make things a bit smoother.

Similar to others, I'm working on a FreeBSD port of Hare. With Hare
preparing to release it 0.24.0 now would be a great time to get it into
package managers. On the FreeBSD side I'm pretty sure you can't use a
non-release version of a package as a dependency, so Hare would be
blocked until a new QBE release.
Reply to thread Export thread (mbox)