[LLVMdev] Obsolete PTX is NOT completely removed in 3.2 release

Pawel Wodnicki root at 32bitmicro.com
Mon Jan 14 11:41:06 PST 2013


On 1/14/2013 12:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote:
>> Brooks,
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote:
>>>> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin Holewinski 
>>>>>> <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Benjamin Kramer 
>>>>>>> <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11.01.2013, at 07:36, ????????? (Wei-Ren Chen) 
>>>>>>> <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Pawel,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PTX already be replaced with NVPTX. However, PTX
>>>>>>>> subdirectory still sit in lib/Target in 3.2 release. Do
>>>>>>>> you think update the release tarball is a good idea? Also
>>>>>>>> could you remove it from the trunk?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please do not, under no circumstances, change the 3.2
>>>>>>> release tarballs at this point. They are mirrored around
>>>>>>> the world now with cryptographic hashes and signatures.
>>>>>>> Changing them will break things for many people, especially
>>>>>>> for an extremely minor thing like an empty directory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure if Pawel's tarball change should be reverted
>>>>>>> now as it already caused uproar, so changing it back might
>>>>>>> only make matters worse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The tarballs were changed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> r172208
>>>>>
>>>>> I finally updated the FreeBSD ports yesterday and today a user
>>>>>  complained about distfile changes.  IMO, this revision should
>>>>> be reverted or all the other BSDs will have to chase checksums
>>>>> as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you really want to remove the directory, ship a 3.2.1
>>>>> tarball rather than screwing all the downstream consumers who's
>>>>>  infrastructure exists to detect trojan'd tarballs.
>>>>
>>>> Tarball is signed, it is not trjoan. Your infrastructure should
>>>> be able to deal with it?
>>>
>>> The FreeBSD ports collection maintains a set of sha256 hashes for 
>>> each distfile.  The system can deal with them changing, but it's
>>> an inconvenience to port maintainers and users.  Even if we did
>>> have infrastructure to verify the signatures we'd still have to
>>> check the contents and would not just trust the signature since
>>> there's always a risk of keys being compromised.
>>>
>>> -- Brooks
>>>
>>
>>  At first your reaction has puzzled me, but despite a few fire
>> breathing dragons getting loose and after carefully re-reading
>> these posts over the weekend I think I understand the underlying
>> issue.
>>
>>  Simply put we both take this release seriously.
>>
>>  The problem is the release process is not entirely
>> defined. Which is reflected in question from David Blaikie
>> (the other post I am quoting here).
>>
>>> Which release process document are you referring to that indicates
>>> that?
>>>
>>
>>  Simple answer is the one on the llvm.org website.
>> But the real answer is, it all depends on how you read it.
>> Apparently, we read it differently which is not that
>> surprising as even our well defined compilers have
>> a bit of a problem with undefined behavior.
>>
>> So what can we expect from a release process document?
>> My hope is that we have reached a sort of sequence
>> point and the ambiguity of the release process
>> can be resolved despite all the side effects.
>>
>>
>> David also stated this:
>>
>>> Generally, so far as I know, this kind of post-release change is
>>> unprecedented.
>>
>>  I agree with this conclusion but even more unprecedented
>> is to a expect timely and problem free release with zero and
>> I'll repeat again zero involvement from the wider community that
>> depends on the clang+llvm!
>>  This is how the 3.2 release has happened, just compare
>> the list of 3.2 to 3.1 binaries and BTW not a single
>> 3.2 binary has been produced with the help of a respective
>> project, distribution or who ever.
>>
>>  I hear the cries of your wounded infrastructures
>> and I understand that in the days of forged root certificates
>> my signature on the tarballs may not guarantee much of a
>> security.
>>
>>  But why didn't you get involved in the 3.2 release?
>>
>>  We could have resolved all this in the 2 months since
>> the 3.2 release got rolling. Everybody knew about the
>> changes for the 3.2 release, simple e-mail to the new
>> LLVMRM would go a long way to resolve any security or
>> other release related issues not to mention a bit
>> of a courtesy.
> 
> I don't understand how my lack of involvement with this release has
> anything to do with your decision to fix what appears to me to be
> a non-problem in the release tarball well after the release and in
> the process do something (replacing release tarballs) that is quite
> simply NOT DONE to by projects who wish to treat their downstreams
> with respect.  This is something many projects end up learning due to
> the painful way so it's not something you should feel bad about as
> long as the project learns the right lesson(s).

Yessir! - lesson learned. Right one? Depends on a point of view.

Seems that downstream might also learn a thing or two about
participating in the release, and it does not have that painful.


> 
> If anything I'd be more annoyed if I'd actually gotten the port updated
> sooner since then it would have worked for more than a day.  As it
> is, I could really use a final decision on which tarball will be at
> http://www.llvm.org/releases/3.2/llvm-3.2.src.tar.gz in perpetuity so I
> can change the port or not as required and avoid churn.

If you are in a hurry check with Tanya or Bill.

> 
> -- Brooks
> 
>>
>>  I am doing this as service to the LLVM community
>> but frankly I'd rather be chasing my dragons of
>> probability now.
>>

PaweĊ‚





More information about the llvm-dev mailing list