Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=521166 Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michael.silvanus@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-08 23:02:49 EDT --- Cc:ing myself on this bug, since this affects how fast LLVM 2.6 can be pushed to F-11. There is an upstream task here: http://bugs.opengtl.org/index.php?do=details&task_id=33 but no completion ETA yet (it's scheduled for 0.9.11). I'm testing revision 7 of our LLVM 2.5 package (-6 was Rawhide-only) that I will try and push straight to F-10 and F-11 stable so OpenGTL can be entered soon. Actually, what is our policy on a package that is not Rawhide-buildable? What happens if F-12 comes out before OpenGTL 0.9.11? The Clang Static Analyzer alone argues in favor of LLVM 2.6. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review