From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Apr 5 21:51:47 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DB31D2D63C for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: from spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (spindle.one-eyed-alien.net [199.48.129.229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E1197E for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:51:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from brooks@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net) Received: by spindle.one-eyed-alien.net (Postfix, from userid 3001) id 442E75A9F14; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:51:40 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:51:40 +0000 From: Brooks Davis To: Chris H Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT Subject: Re: how to mark llvm* forbidden? Message-ID: <20170405215139.GA62417@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <67e1da1eb0ff0550aab07f56d1f022ab@ultimatedns.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <67e1da1eb0ff0550aab07f56d1f022ab@ultimatedns.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 21:51:47 -0000 --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 11:42:16AM -0700, Chris H wrote: > OK I'm chasing -CURRENT, and I performed an initial > install, followed by a new world/kernel && ports about a > mos ago. Last Friday, I svn upped the system (src && ports), > rebuilt/installed world/kernel. I just began rebuilding > the ports, only to find that when finished, I will likely > end up with every version of llvm && clang from version 3 > to the now current 4. My build session is currently tying > nearly every core on the CPU with llvm builds. Given that > llvm4 comes in base. Is there *any* reason I can not insist > that the ports I upgrade, or build, just use the version(s) > of clang/llvm in base? If so. How do I inform the ports > that they may *only* use the version(s) in base? In general you can't. There are many reasons including: the base llvm doesn't include the requisite cmake bits for cmake based ports, some ports use unstable APIs and require specific LLVM versions, and some use LLVM tools or libraries that aren't built/installed as part of the base system. There are probably some ports where the base clang is fine but that's probably mostly down to someone getting USES variables right. -- Brooks --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJY5WbqAAoJEKzQXbSebgfAl6wIAIjDjxR6G4gWb3zOVsomhiku uxvfzSeZ3wmj57ZQMUUsKvqFjd5TwT4nUan9aJLdvx+8PYM/0BIupLGKtBAi4Cm/ o4qay2u7kO+qWuLZ2zar1SQ7Gq4vOkb2KP/aOJFimLjfOeRVnvwrBXvqaVkAwgE4 Ket7gfDJlHCR72t66gaMbHfGkqFPJ2FUnPWNJjUMm3Rh+Mqu/dVwJQOslXiT93cP eQA/ehaJ+xSxVDxbEufCBRyLv//r/yHLbUFnN5p0UgVzFayc29RaFu5bQHlUiiwL rXHQadmd9duTrnS9cLibkj8v7xs9HD2v1qOX4Gs2QwOuOUY572gAiqoowG4yoHQ= =52u4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --45Z9DzgjV8m4Oswq--