* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. [not found] ` <20170307212411.GA29363@mail.thebird.nl> @ 2017-05-10 6:11 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2017-05-10 6:57 ` Roel Janssen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Pjotr Prins; +Cc: 25879 Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >> >> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >> is the case? > > With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as > packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit > behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with > Julia). I agree. @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything missing or was it just forgotten? -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 6:11 ` bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1 Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 6:57 ` Roel Janssen 2017-05-10 10:07 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 6:57 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: 25879 Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: > >> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>> >>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>> is the case? >> >> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >> Julia). > > I agree. > > @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything > missing or was it just forgotten? I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. Kind regards, Roel Janssen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 6:57 ` Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 10:07 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2017-05-10 10:17 ` Roel Janssen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 10:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roel Janssen; +Cc: 25879 Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>>> >>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>>> is the case? >>> >>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >>> Julia). >> >> I agree. >> >> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything >> missing or was it just forgotten? > > I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next > to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I > am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. > > If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we > can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around, especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects won’t build with later versions without adjustments. (RStudio, for example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and it crashes with later versions.) It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 10:07 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 10:17 ` Roel Janssen 2017-05-10 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: 25879 Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: >>> >>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>>>> >>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>>>> is the case? >>>> >>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >>>> Julia). >>> >>> I agree. >>> >>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything >>> missing or was it just forgotten? >> >> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next >> to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I >> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. >> >> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we >> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. > > I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around, > especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects > won’t build with later versions without adjustments. (RStudio, for > example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and > it crashes with later versions.) > > It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we > don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer. So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then? Kind regards, Roel Janssen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 10:17 ` Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus 2017-05-10 13:44 ` Roel Janssen 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 10:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roel Janssen; +Cc: 25879 Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: > Ricardo Wurmus writes: > >> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: >> >>> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>> >>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>>>>> is the case? >>>>> >>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >>>>> Julia). >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything >>>> missing or was it just forgotten? >>> >>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next >>> to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I >>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. >>> >>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we >>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. >> >> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around, >> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects >> won’t build with later versions without adjustments. (RStudio, for >> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and >> it crashes with later versions.) >> >> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we >> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer. > > So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then? Yes, please! :) If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8 could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my opinion. If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you can make the change in a follow-up commit. -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 13:44 ` Roel Janssen 2017-05-10 13:54 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 13:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ricardo Wurmus; +Cc: 25879 Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: >>> >>>> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >>>> >>>>> Pjotr Prins <pjotr.public12@thebird.nl> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 09:06:28PM +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote: >>>>>>> > Well, actually, this is just the latest release, so maybe I should >>>>>>> > update the 3.8.1 recipe to3.9.1 instead. WDYT? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the other users of LLVM and Clang (as per ‘guix refresh -l llvm’) can >>>>>>> cope with it, upgrading sounds better indeed. Could you check if that >>>>>>> is the case? >>>>>> >>>>>> With LLVM it is probably a good idea to keep the major versions as >>>>>> packages tend to lag after latest. Many compiler writers are a bit >>>>>> behind and sometimes people want to use older compilers (like with >>>>>> Julia). >>>>> >>>>> I agree. >>>>> >>>>> @Roel: I see that this patch hasn’t been pushed yet. Is there anything >>>>> missing or was it just forgotten? >>>> >>>> I think the idea was to upgrade, instead of have this newer version next >>>> to the current version. The upgrade involves a lot of rebuilding, and I >>>> am stuck at compiling 'dub' with 3.9.1. >>>> >>>> If we can instead apply this patch as (having both 3.8.1 and 3.9.1), we >>>> can push it, and after that add the darktable patch as well. >>> >>> I think it’s fine to have multiple versions of LLVM + Clang around, >>> especially considering that in my experience many dependent projects >>> won’t build with later versions without adjustments. (RStudio, for >>> example, still insists on the oldest version of Clang that we offer, and >>> it crashes with later versions.) >>> >>> It would be good to keep an eye on this, though, to make sure that we >>> don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer. >> >> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then? > > Yes, please! :) Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7. > If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8 > could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my > opinion. > > If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you > can make the change in a follow-up commit. I am sure that at least 'c-reduce' does not build with 3.9.1. So I think we'll need to take this on a per-program basis. I'll see which ones can be built with 3.9.1. Thanks! Kind regards, Roel Janssen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. 2017-05-10 13:44 ` Roel Janssen @ 2017-05-10 13:54 ` Ricardo Wurmus 0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Ricardo Wurmus @ 2017-05-10 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Roel Janssen; +Cc: 25879-done Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org> writes: >>> So, is it OK to push the patch as-is then? >> >> Yes, please! :) > > Pushed in 584da12dc71da745edb13bf748e832b77a0193d7. Great! Closing this bug. >> If you can, it would be good to investigate if current users of 3.8 >> could be built with 3.9, but this doesn’t have to block this patch in my >> opinion. >> >> If in fact all users of 3.8 can be built with 3.9 without problems you >> can make the change in a follow-up commit. > > I am sure that at least 'c-reduce' does not build with 3.9.1. So I > think we'll need to take this on a per-program basis. I'll see which > ones can be built with 3.9.1. Thanks for taking care of this! -- Ricardo GPG: BCA6 89B6 3655 3801 C3C6 2150 197A 5888 235F ACAC https://elephly.net ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-05-10 13:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <87shn12p2i.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <87k28180ob.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <87d1dskjdh.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <8737eosvgb.fsf@gnu.org>
[not found] ` <20170307212411.GA29363@mail.thebird.nl>
2017-05-10 6:11 ` bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1 Ricardo Wurmus
2017-05-10 6:57 ` Roel Janssen
2017-05-10 10:07 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2017-05-10 10:17 ` Roel Janssen
2017-05-10 10:23 ` Ricardo Wurmus
2017-05-10 13:44 ` Roel Janssen
2017-05-10 13:54 ` Ricardo Wurmus
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).