http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164454
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164454#c8
--- Comment #8 from Aaron Puchert
That works for me but then the origin should be the Factory packages rather than the SLE ones. Note that in SLE15 SP2 we have quite some packages that use clang/llvm-devel and all of those (but Mesa!) still use llvm7 - I'm not sure whether they build if we update the 'llvm' package or which one would need adjustment to build-require llvm7/clang7 variants. This and because the "update" for SP2 was late is the reason I refrained from touching the 'llvm' meta-package and made sure we only use llvm9 from Mesa (where it was requested as a feature) for SP2. Ok, I'm not sure what's in SLE that depends on LLVM, might have a look later today.
I also wonder if we want to drop llvm5/7 from Leap 15.2 if we introduce llvm9. I've already filed (https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/776163) for deletion of llvm5, because it's no longer required as dependency. We can't drop 7 though, because a handful of packages still want that. (ghc, beignet, python-llvmlite...)
But as said all this is quite some work and I currently have no spare cycles for a proper solution in Leap. Yeah, the different setup of SLE and Leap makes it a bit harder to find a solution that works for both.
We can of course try pulling llvm and llvm9 from Factory into a staging and see what breaks... llvm9 could still come from SLE, then we wouldn't violate the idea of having the base packages come from SLE. Only the metapackage would come from Factory.
To drop the duplicate llvm7 packages, we could just take the version from Factory as well. I think diverging from SLE in the light of this bug should be Ok. We've diverged anyway after my fix to bug 1138457. That request went in despite the origin change. (https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/712921) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.