https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1223673 --- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #9) > So what happens when llvm and llvm33/llvm34/llvm35 are installed, could we > get conflicts about LLVMgold.so, BugpointPasses.so, libLTO.so and > readline.so? I don't think so, or it wouldn't have worked. I don't know. I am not aware of any problems, right. I don't even know which of the programs if any are using them. I couldn't see anything linking to libLTO for example (of course something could be dlopen'ing them). > > So I also feel we could waive this like was done for llvm34. > Sure, let's investigate this for llvm first. Yes - bug filed (comment 12). > > > - Minor point: I realized each subpackage creates its own directory > > > under /usr/share/doc/. Since they contain very few files and most apply > > > to all subpackages (e.g. LICENSE.txt), wouldn't it be better to put > > > everthing > > > under a common llvm dir? > > > > This is true and also true for many other packages I think. > > I'd rather just leave it for simplicity - though in principle > > I agree with you completely, but I feel this is more a deficiency > > of rpm. > Not a big deal, but I think RPM handles this if you make the directory owned > by llvm35-libs, which AFAICT all subpackages depend on. I happy to take patch if you want to do that. Sorry I don't really have time/energy/motivation to do it. :) And again it is true for the main llvm package too I believe, right? > > Hmm, isn't "runtime" pretty standard? > Yeah, but I would do anything to shut down an annoying warning. :-) These warnings are very frequent across many packages. The spelling dictionaries are really too limited or don't cover such technical usage. I feel it is good to stay close to the original llvm.spec too as far as possible. > > Good question - perhaps Fedora could grab a patch from Debian? > > Again I think this should be done first for the llvm package. > > I opened bug 1258760 for that. > Or, better, the manpages could be submitted upstream if Debian has some. But > definitely not an issue for llvm35. Yep (In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #11) > Yes, a small comment wouldn't hurt. I think the guidelines say that -03 > should generally be avoided unless you can be sure it really improves > performance. Apparently it was added without comment in this commit: commit be655c46e5d3707531fb8bef5430a9c064653197 Author: Jan Vcelak <jvcelak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue Nov 12 21:48:50 2013 +0100 update to 3.3, add compiler-rt and lldb : Not sure how much thought was put into it. I sent a mail to Jan asking about it. I opened bug 1272394 to track this too! We can wait for his reply or go ahead I guess since I consider this a backport from the llvm package. Can you live with the current spec file or what do you think must be changed still for approval? I hope I didn't miss anything. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review