From owner-freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Fri Oct 4 20:36:09 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48B90138AAC for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46lM8n0rlwz3KqW for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 1D06C138AA2; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:09 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: x11@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CBC1138AA1 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46lM8m73pmz3KqS for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D79BE1CBC for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x94Ka8HI068981 for ; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:08 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x94Ka8R5068980 for x11@FreeBSD.org; Fri, 4 Oct 2019 20:36:08 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f 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 Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:36:07 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: brooks@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Closed X-Bugzilla-Resolution: FIXED X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback+ maintainer-feedback? maintainer-feedback+ X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 20:36:09 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D239682 --- Comment #38 from Brooks Davis --- (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.=