Re: Freeze for LLVM packages
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >> 2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> >> > On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 19:01 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> >> >> - Rename the current "llvm" source package to "llvm-2.6" and
> >> >> replace binaries by versioned binaries. Thus, it is allowed to have
> >> >> two versions in the archive (the 2.7 version is already versioned),
> >> >> just like GCC.
> >> >
> >> > My primary question is "what does this gain us for Squeeze?" I can see
> >> > that it could make future maintenance easier when llvm 2.8 hits the
> >> > archive, but that's not going to the case for Squeeze.
[...]
> > So far as I can see, the current packages are already co-installable,
> > albeit under the names "llvm" and "llvm-2.7"; that's not as clean as
> > might be preferable, but it would work.
[...]
> In other words, here is what I want for squeeze:
[snip llvm-defaults explanation]
Thanks, that fits with what I'd expected.
As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether
there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting
for squeeze+1.
> Very most users want to use 2.7 rather that 2.6. It would just make
> their life easier by just asking them to install "llvm-dev" and use
> unversioned binaries.
Has the current configuration confused people that you know of or is
this more of a "of course people want to use the latest version by
default"?
> As I already said, those changes are smooth for the archive.
For unstable, most probably. For testing we're looking at adding two
new source packages and updating the {build-,}dependencies of some
others and rebuilding them; all of that carries some risk, even if it
should be small.
> > On a related note, the version of at least the llvm binary package would
> > also need to be greater than the current 2.6-9. apt won't view llvm_0.1
> > as requiring an upgrade from an already installed package of a higher
> > version.
>
> The llvm-defaults 0.1 source package builds 2.7-1 binaries, see
> debian/rules.
Ah, yes; I should have expected that when you mentioned it was based on
gcc-defaults. :-) (Having the source versioned in a way that allows the
source and binary versions to stay in sync seems more obvious imho,
but...)
> This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this
> side.
Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to
be uploaded. How much is "a bit of work"? One issue I did notice is
that llvm-defaults is missing a build-dependency on m4 (having tried
building it in a clean(ish) chroot).
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: