2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt <[email protected]>: > As I said, my primary concern from a release point of view is whether > there are good reasons for doing the changes now, rather than waiting > for squeeze+1.
As Matthias said, the reason is to get the good llvm version installed when users type "apt-get install llvm", which is 2.7. Version 2.6 is just there for the two packages that still need it for now, and will be removed for squeeze+1. >> Very most users want to use 2.7 rather that 2.6. It would just make >> their life easier by just asking them to install "llvm-dev" and use >> unversioned binaries. > > Has the current configuration confused people that you know of or is > this more of a "of course people want to use the latest version by > default"? Both. >> This package still needs a bit of work, but not on this >> side. > > Ah, I'd assumed everything was basically ready to go and just waiting to > be uploaded. How much is "a bit of work"? One issue I did notice is > that llvm-defaults is missing a build-dependency on m4 (having tried > building it in a clean(ish) chroot). The source package was given "in its current state", so not ready to be uploaded yet. The "bit of work" remaining is quite small (partly done locally already). I will probably give you the finished version later today. Thanks, Arthur. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
