Is this intended for Fedora 28 or Fedora 29?

sigh Fedora 29. I missed the 28 deadline by several weeks. :-(

@nickc Is it significantly different than what we have in 2.29.1 in a way that could break things? If not, we haven't done the mass rebuild yet...

@nickc Is it significantly different than what we have in 2.29.1 in a way that could break things?

Yes. :-(

Well not significantly different, but new and untested enough that it
might cause problems.

I would love to see it go into the about-to-happen mass rebuild, but
honestly, I think that it would be safer to wait for 28 to branch,
and then check the changes into the new rawhide.

I think, there was a similar discussion regarding GCC 8. See: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/2C3G2TXKVNGLRZTSSHT5IBBUHVBHEAY5/#2C3G2TXKVNGLRZTSSHT5IBBUHVBHEAY5

Just a few of quotes:
- Mass rebuild with a prerelease version of the compiler, like every year at
least in the past 10 years in Fedora.
- This is the cost of being "First". Fedora has long enjoyed a tight coupling
with the GCC upstream. It's a symbiosis: they use our mass-rebuild to help
identify any issues before GCC goes stable and in turn Fedora gets to have
the newest compiler features before anyone else.
- Realistically, since Fedora is the first real-world exercise of new GCC, if
we waited for the upstream stable release, it would be exactly as it is
now. Fedora would hit all the same issues and GCC would have to release
updates to fix them for us.

Also based on https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7249 binutils 2.30 was
approved ("we will include this in the mass rebuild") for f28 mass rebuild
3 weeks ago.

GCC 8.0.1 and glibc ~2.27 have already landed from what I have seen in
git repositories and koji.

It feels strange not to have binutils 2.30.

Hi David,

It feels strange not to have binutils 2.30.

Does this mean that I can commit the 2.30 update to the rawhide binutils ?

I submitted a change request for this:

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7282
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/BINUTILS230

But I thought that I was too late to get the rebase in to Fedora 28.

Cheers
Nick

PS, I have the rebase all tested locally and ready to go. I just
need a green light to commit the update.

As long as you're not doing another "change compiler flags and break the world" thing, I would hope it'd be fine...

(Note, not releng, my worth is worthless, etc. etc.)

Heh :-) Well I am not intentionally planning on breaking anything, but it is a new release of the binutils, and they are pretty fundamental to the whole process of compiling and linking binaries. So there is a possibility that something will break. But then that is one of the main purposes of the mass rebuild at this time , right ? Collect together the latest and greatest of all the packages and then make sure that they all build whilst there is still time to fix up any snafus.

Yeah, pretty much. But things like the flag switch with 2.29.1 was not fun to deal with. :(

@nickc, pretty sure FESCo can make an exception. Just ask them.

We will stick with 2.29.1 for Fedora 28. Too many moving parts already.

Releng acknowledges this change and it will be included in the mass rebuild.

Closing this in favor of https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7475