Re: Freeze for LLVM packages
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.
>
> Starting with 2.7, the new convention is to have versioned source
> packages, to allow several different versions to co-exist.
Apologies if my question wasn't clear. I appreciate why having the
versioned names is advantageous - I'm just not sure what the advantage
is to doing the renaming for 2.6 in squeeze, rather than in squeeze+1.
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.
> >> - Upload a package called llvm-defaults which would provide the
> >> binaries for the default (2.7) version. It can be found in its current
> >> state here [0]. Also like GCC.
> >
> > The llvm-defaults package begins producing the llvm binary package, but
> > build-depends on "llvm (>= 2.7)". As the latest version of llvm in the
> > archive is 2.6-9 and the version built from llvm-defaults would be 0.1,
> > that would make the package unbuildable.
>
> This should be "llvm-2.7 (>= 2.7-1)", indeed. Thanks, fixed.
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.
Regards,
Adam
Reply to: