From owner-freebsd-current@freebsd.org Wed Apr 5 22:30:54 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 63FF0D309A9 for ; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:30:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 428D12AA; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 22:30:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) Received: from ultimatedns.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id v35MW3c1079381; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 15:32:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@bsdforge.com) To: Brooks Davis Cc: FreeBSD CURRENT In-Reply-To: <20170405215139.GA62417@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <67e1da1eb0ff0550aab07f56d1f022ab@ultimatedns.net>, <20170405215139.GA62417@spindle.one-eyed-alien.net> From: "Chris H" Subject: Re: how to mark llvm* forbidden? Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 15:32:09 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=fixed MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-id: <26b7ef04eae1f095c399fae53eaaba39@ultimatedns.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 22:30:54 -0000 On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 21:51:40 +0000 Brooks Davis wrote > 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 Grumble.. That's what I was afraid I might hear. Thanks, Brooks! Even if it's not what I was hoping to hear. :) --Chris