On Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Duncan Mac-Vicar P. wrote:
On 11/17/2010 09:13 PM, İsmail Dönmez wrote:
You beat me to it. My plan was to compile whole factory with clang aka BSD. But... please package 2.9 svn instead of 2.8 because SVN has important fixes for compiling Qt, mplayer, ffmpeg, x264 and anything that uses inline assembly. I am day by day tracking clang against ffmpeg SVN.
Interesting point.
Packages BuildRequiring LLVM usually require an specific version.
I would love to package 2.9svn, but rubinius, Mono, etc, work with 2.8 only. (actually 2.6, but I have a patch for rubinius and Mono should work with 2.8 too).
However I am pretty sure more than one app won't work with 2.8. This bring the question whether it makes sense to version the package so that we can have more than one in parallel (ie: llvm2_8 llvm2_9), however LLVM is already a "big" package, and this would make life more complex.
I suppose the build-requiring packages use a library interface to LLVM, not the frontends (clang or llvm-gcc). I suggest packaging the library pieces separately in versioned sub-packages so that multiple versions can be installed in parallel. I don't know if it is useful to have multiple clang/llvm-gcc versions installed in parallel (and btw, I'd advise against packaging llvm-gcc at all - please force people to use clang, which is the only reasonable reason to prefer llvm).
Another solution is to have always latest release + llvm-head (2 packages) in the devel:tools:compiler repo, but the released one on Factory.
I btw agree that devel:tools:compiler is the right place, I'll grant you access there. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex