Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 11:02:45 +0200 From: Christoph Moench-Tegeder <cmt@burggraben.net> To: freebsd-gecko@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Firefox and llvm Message-ID: <20190617090245.GA2435@elch.exwg.net> In-Reply-To: <a1248947-bdb6-ddb8-5eb3-6485b91656e5@aldan.algebra.com> References: <96bcddaf-f310-34b3-70c6-6a223f5f8b6c@aldan.algebra.com> <5zp5-yp43-wny@FreeBSD.org> <64325580-58fa-be6a-6045-58c5409ddb20@aldan.algebra.com> <y321-osmi-wny@FreeBSD.org> <a1248947-bdb6-ddb8-5eb3-6485b91656e5@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
## Mikhail T. (mi+thun@aldan.algebra.com): > > Good luck. Make sure to test in a clean environment e.g., via poudriere > > Jan, this is the job of the port's maintainer... The current situation > -- requiring a rebuild of LLVM twice -- is ridiculous, should never have > come about, and should not remain for long. I hope, we agree on the > first and the second, at least... You're assuming infinite maintainer resources... I'll side with Jan, it's ridiculous or at least not first priority to create custom patches for this case (which will require maintenance and may break completely at some point in the future) when there's a full llvm readily available from our own ports collection. Anyway, what's the problem with building llvm? Regards, Christoph -- Spare Space
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20190617090245.GA2435>