On Sun, 2024-12-08 at 04:53 +, Sam James wrote:
> I fear this sort of assumes we won't switch to monobuild any time soon.
I don't see one precluding the other. Categories are cheap. Package
moves not necessarily, but switching to monorepo will be complete pain
whether one more package move i
On Sun, 2024-12-08 at 04:11 +, Sam James wrote:
> I'm not sure if I'm sold on *two*. What happens for stuff like mlir
> where it's not a runtime but it's arguably more of one than core?
>
> It just doesn't feel like the division works great. Or maybe it's just
> because I feel like llvm-core w
On Sun, Dec 08, 2024 at 04:53:58AM +, Sam James wrote:
> I fear this sort of assumes we won't switch to monobuild any time soon.
>
> I keep thinking [0] about how sustainable our current setup is:
> * Fedora moved away from it for >=18 [1].
> * As we saw with offload, it broke a few times in j
Michał Górny writes:
> Hello,
>
> Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will
> grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR
> soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose
> creating dedicated categories for these packag
Michał Górny writes:
> Hello,
>
> Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will
> grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR
> soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose
> creating dedicated categories for these packag
Hello,
Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will
grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR
soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose
creating dedicated categories for these packages and moving them there.
If not
