bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1.

[Roel Janssen <roel@gnu.org>]

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 don’t provide outdated versions that have no users and no maintainer.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