Re: Freeze for LLVM packages
2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt <adam@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
> 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.
As Matthias said, the reason is to get the good llvm version installed
when users type "apt-get install llvm", which is 2.7. Version 2.6 is
just there for the two packages that still need it for now, and will
be removed 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"?
Both.
>> 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).
The source package was given "in its current state", so not ready to
be uploaded yet. The "bit of work" remaining is quite small (partly
done locally already). I will probably give you the finished version
later today.
Thanks,
Arthur.
Reply to: