Re: [PULL v2 00/27] Block patches

[Daniel P . Berrangé]

On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 05:52:59PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 05/02/2021 17.23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Feb 2021 at 16:21, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks, I update the patch in question.
> > > 
> > > It looks like the GitLab CI doesn't include a clang version that
> > > produces this error because the pipeline passed for me:
> > > https://gitlab.com/stefanha/qemu/-/pipelines/251524779
> > > 
> > > Is there something clang-specific you want to check in the CI? Maybe
> > > clang 3.4, the oldest version supported according to ./configure?
> > 
> > Would probably be nice I guess. My ad-hoc builds use clang 6,
> > which is what tripped up here.
> 
> We should maybe discuss first whether we can bump the minimum version of
> Clang that we would like to support. I once picked Clang 3.4 since that was
> available in EPEL for RHEL7, but I think there were newer versions of Clang
> available in RHEL7 via other repos later, so 3.4 is likely really just way
> too old now...
> 
> According to https://developers.redhat.com/HW/ClangLLVM-RHEL-7 there was at
> least Clang 7.0 available on RHEL7. Debian stable seems to have at least
> 7.0, too, according to repology.org. Ubuntu 18.04 seems to have version 6,
> but later ones are available via updates? Anyway, I think we could at least
> bump the minimum version to 6.0 nowadays...

Per our support matrix, this is the last dev cycle where we need to
care about RHEL-7, as RHEL-7 will be past the 2 year cutoff in
the QEMU 6.1 cycle.

Furthermore given that CLang was only ever an EPEL package, not a
core part of the distro, I think we are justified in just ignoring
RHEL-7 already for purpose of choosing CLang min version.

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|