Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 23:37:45 +0100 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Erik Cederstrand <erik@cederstrand.dk> Cc: David Chisnall <theraven@FreeBSD.org>, Current FreeBSD <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Ports FreeBSD <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces! Message-ID: <50E9FCB9.2000805@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <042CBED1-5257-4517-B040-9EE760BE7FE1@cederstrand.dk> References: <50E97457.7050809@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <34476030-BDBF-46C4-8E7D-60FDC53B076A@FreeBSD.org> <50E9B385.9060104@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <042CBED1-5257-4517-B040-9EE760BE7FE1@cederstrand.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-01-06 21:38, Erik Cederstrand wrote: > Den 06/01/2013 kl. 18.25 skrev "O. Hartmann" <ohartman@zedat.fu-berlin.de>: >>> In contrast, LLVM changes the ABI (and API!) significantly between point releases. We therefore don't want to encourage anything outside of the base system to link against these libraries, because doing so would prevent us from importing a new LLVM release every six months - we'd either need to ship 4 copies of LLVM by an x.3 release, or stick with the one that we shipped in x.0. >> Indeed, this is a serious point and the developer of LLVM has to be >> blamed for that. > You can't seriously blame LLVM for making progress. If ports rely on a specific version of LLVM, it would be far better to create devel/llvm31, devel/llvm32 etc. Yes, I think that is probably the most effective approach. It should also be possible to install multiple versions simultaneously.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50E9FCB9.2000805>