From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45543) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Oi1-0003aa-Cs for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 06:19:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Ohy-0002WU-9G for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 06:19:05 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:60676) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Ohy-0002WM-6c for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 06:19:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1d8Ohy-0001lt-1q for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 10 May 2017 06:19:02 -0400 Subject: bug#25879: [PATCH] gnu: Add LLVM and CLANG 3.9.1. Resent-Message-ID: References: <87shn12p2i.fsf@gnu.org> <87k28180ob.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1dskjdh.fsf@gnu.org> <8737eosvgb.fsf@gnu.org> <20170307212411.GA29363@mail.thebird.nl> <87bmr1i6l3.fsf@elephly.net> <87inl9gpvu.fsf@gnu.org> <877f1phvox.fsf@elephly.net> From: Roel Janssen In-reply-to: <877f1phvox.fsf@elephly.net> Date: Wed, 10 May 2017 12:17:53 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ricardo Wurmus Cc: 25879@debbugs.gnu.org Ricardo Wurmus writes: > Roel Janssen writes: > >> Ricardo Wurmus writes: >> >>> Pjotr Prins 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