On 6/19/20 10:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Am 19. Juni 2020 09:58:34 MESZ schrieb John Paul Adrian Glaubitz > <[email protected]>: > >> clang isn’t required to build libreoffice [1], it’s just recommend. > > I know. That is even documented: > > https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/-/blob/debian-experimental-7.0/rules > > Line 617ff.
So nothing that keeps us from using GCC in cases where clang is not available. >> Not sure why you want to enforce architectures off libreoffice when >> it’s technically not necessary. > > Read the comment. That's just your personal way of implementing it. It's not mandatory to do it this way. You can just create a simple whitelist where clang is always enabled and disabled on any other architecture. It's not really rocket science. > Besides that it is obsolete non-release architectures. It's not armel where > I might need to think of a plan b given the FTBFS... Asking me (and the other porters) to port LLVM to a given architecture when it's actually a tremendous work effort because you insist on using clang even if there are no valid technical reasons, is not what I consider to be cooperative and fair in an open-source community. It's also not a given that clang generates faster code on _any_ given architecture, it might be true for x86_64, but not necessarily for armhf or s390x. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - [email protected] `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - [email protected] `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
