Nathan Chancellor <nathan@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't >> conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and >> llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with >> same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to >> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively. >> >> For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other: >> >> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/ > > I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both? > You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so > why bother extracting them? Ah, I didn't realise that. I assumed llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz was a cross compiler. I'm sure you documented that in the page but hey who reads the documentation ;) > I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on > the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I > should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the > target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)? Makes sense now. But I still think it's good style that a tarball named llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz extracts to llvm-16.0.0-aarch64. >> And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it >> more official? :) > > Yes, I was talking that over with Nick recently, as having it under a > group on kernel.org would make taking over maintainership easier should > something happen to me :) Yeah, sharing the load is always good. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
