On Wed, August 18, 2010 11:50, Arthur Loiret wrote:
> 2010/8/18, Adam D. Barratt <a...@adam-barratt.org.uk>:
>> 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.
Matthias also mentioned trying to remove 2.6 for Squeeze, which is rather
less likely.
So far as I can see, the current split of 2.6 vs 2.7 using packages in the
archive is
2.6 - ldc, llvm-py, llvm-gcc-4.2 (i386)
2.7 - clang, haskell-llvm, llvm-gcc-4.2 (amd64), openjdk-6
Which of those packages will not work with 2.7? Of the remainder which,
if any, are you proposing changing the {build-,}dependencies of? Any
depending on "llvm (>= 2.6)" which will also work with 2.7 shouldn't
require changes and there's certainly an argument that for squeeze uploads
which simply changed the llvm-2.7 dependencies to be "llvm (>= 2.7)"
wouldn't qualify for exceptions on their own.
llvm-gcc-4.2 also has a new upstream version in unstable which was
uploaded after the freeze and does not have an exception (and ftbfs on
i386), which doesn't help.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/feb26b55b4d4c2e70d105ec86c47452d.squir...@adsl.funky-badger.org
