On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 02:09 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote: > 2010/8/16, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>: > > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:21 +0200, Arthur Loiret wrote: > >> 2010/8/15, Adam D. Barratt <a...@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. [...] > > 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. [...] > In other words, here is what I want for squeeze:
[snip llvm-defaults explanation] Thanks, that fits with what I'd expected. 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. > 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"? > As I already said, those changes are smooth for the archive. For unstable, most probably. For testing we're looking at adding two new source packages and updating the {build-,}dependencies of some others and rebuilding them; all of that carries some risk, even if it should be small. > > 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. > > The llvm-defaults 0.1 source package builds 2.7-1 binaries, see > debian/rules. Ah, yes; I should have expected that when you mentioned it was based on gcc-defaults. :-) (Having the source versioned in a way that allows the source and binary versions to stay in sync seems more obvious imho, but...) > 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). Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1282108396.8293.4930.ca...@kaa.jungle.aubergine.my-net-space.net