https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1109390
--- Comment #16 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #13)
You can't see llvm34? (comment 11)
Ugh, that should have read "You can't *use* llvm34?"
(Since you mentioned that version in version 11.)
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #15)
Actually, I already have an llvm3.3 package ready for a long time,
which I
can rename to llvm33. I was more asking for your opinion about having
another versioned-LLVM package in Fedora, since anyway I'd need support to
get this review request accepted.
I don't see any problem with having llvm33 in Fedora if it is needed.
(llvm34 seems to be working just fine and I haven't had to update it.)
I don't need clang, and indeed I realized the build fails if I
enable it in
64-bit Rawhide (but not in other versions). Is that expected?
I removed all the clang and other misc subpackaging from llvm34.spec
which simplifies the packaging a lot. I think it is a lot more work
to package the whole of llvm+clang etc as llvmXY.
Does your current package actually build then?
My personal recommendation would be to just "rebase" llvm33.spec
off llvm34.spec - if you do that I am happy to help review it.
I think that should just work (ie more or less just changing
the version number etc should be enough.:)
I appreciate this submission pre-dates llvm34, but nevertheless
llvm34 is a newer version of llvm than llvm33 and I think it is better
to keep the packaging of these two packages as close as possible
to ease maintainence and avoid potential problems and extra work. :)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component