[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: llvm-defaults vs update alternatives

 ❦ 21 juin 2014 18:46 +0200, Sylvestre Ledru <sylvestre@debian.org> :

> Currently, LLVM default binaries are managed by the llvm-defaults package
> (similar to gcc-defaults).
> To sum up, we have binaries like /usr/bin/llvm-nm-X.Y. llvm-defaults
> provides symlinks /usr/bin/llvm-nm to the actual binaries.
> Usually, I manage 3 versions of LLVM in parallel (currently, 3.3, 3.4 &
> snapshot).
> I saw various complains from users (example:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991493 ) to switch to the
> update-alternatives mechanism. This would allow a quick and global
> switch from a LLVM version to another.

I don't think alternatives should be used for versioning. For example,
we don't use alternatives for gcc, neither for Python. We would start
getting errors about "package X does not compile on my system" or
"module Y does cannot be compiled".

In the bug report, I just see that some upstreams didn't account for
multiple versions installed. But since it is something that exists for a
long time to choose the C compiler (and some other tools), I think they
will eventually adapt.
Test programs at their boundary values.
            - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: