Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:36:07 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: x11@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 239682] Default to devel/llvm90 when libLLVM/libclang are required or if /usr/bin/clang is not enough Message-ID: <bug-239682-7141-RSDfoOuNuu@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-239682-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-239682-7141@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239682 --- Comment #38 from Brooks Davis <brooks@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #36) > "typical pkg set" argument is double-edged, sacrificing many for the few.= If LLVM_DEFAULT is too old (e.g., misses some C++20 stuff or has bugs only= fixed in later version) it may lead to individual ports hardcoding llvm ve= rsions. However, some like Mesa can avoid RUN_DEPENDS by statically linking. I'd like to see us bump LLVM_DEFAULT well before the next release comes out (roughly every six months), I just think it's best to give it some settle t= ime. One could argue for waiting for the X.0.1 patch release, but that's probab= ly more conservative than necessary. FWIW, I do get a fair bit of dogfooding even in the RCs without soliciting testing. It might be worth doing a call for testing on the mailing list for LLVM_DEFAULT bumps in the future. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-239682-7141-RSDfoOuNuu>