Bug#451106: ITP: llvm2 -- Low-Level Virtual Machine (LLVM) compiler for C/C++

[Al Stone <ahs3@ahs3.net>]

Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:56:00PM +0000, Al Stone wrote:
> > Arthur,
> >
> > It seems sort of overkill to do a whole new ITP for LLVM.  If you're
> > interested, you could take over the maintenance of the existing
> > LLVM packages, perhaps even put them into team maintenance.  I haven't
> > had the time need to maintain the packages, and haven't put it up for
> > adoption yet, mostly because no one else has come forward as willing
> > to do the work...
>
>   OTOH llvm 2.x is not backward compatible with the 1.x series, and
> comes some brand new tools, meaning that such a package will go through
> NEW and stuff like that anyways.
>
>   It _is_ a brand new package on many aspects. It's unclear to me if
> llvm should continue to exist in the archive or not, but I disagree with
> the fact that an ITP is an overkill.
>
> Cheers,

So there should be a new package name every time upstream introduces
significant new functionality?  That makes very little sense to me
and seems to introduce an awful lot of extra -- and duplicated -- work.
And, given the size of this package, adding multiple tens of megabytes
to the archives can't help, either.

If LLVM had a huge user base, perhaps that would make sense.  In this
case, however, I think you're better off just taking over the existing
package name.

--
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone                                      Alter Ego:
E-mail: ahs3@ahs3.net                         Debian Developer
 -or-                                         http://www.debian.org
E-mail: ahstone@comcast.net                   ahs3@debian.org
----------------------------------------------------------------------