On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 18:00 -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > Putting that another way, if we carried eglibc in Fedora, there would be > cries and shouts if a large number of packages started requiring it > because we have folks that maintain GLIBC. I don't believe this is entirely accurate, since glibc appears to be making moves to get eglibc merged. > I feel LLVM is a similar piece of critical technology that we should > not need for critpath. Honestly the biggest question I have about llvm maintenance is whether we should allow it to self-host under clang or whether we must build it with gcc. Upstream llvm typically self-hosts, and there are known bugs where clang-built-llvm works but gcc-built-llvm is crashy. We should at least make it easy to build llvm either way for comparison. I'm happy to keep patching up llvm as I hit issues in it, of course. It's something I'm stuck with for RHEL in the future anyway. I'm not likely to have the resources to investigate issues that don't affect Mesa, but as long as everybody who needs llvm can commit to that level of self-interest we should be fine. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
