We finally had a situation where the llvm-N.0 naming convention did not work 
out, and we have a port named llvm-7.0 now actually being llvm-7.1.0. This 
inaccuracy generates a "disturbance in the force”. AFAICT, this has not ever 
happened before, so we always got away with it.

We can just live with this, probably, as it is so rare, at least so far. Or we 
can rename all the llvm/clang/lldb ports from 5 onwards to llvm-5 instead of 
llvm-5.0, etc. This would be more accurate, technically, but otherwise 
meaningless in practice. However, there are so many Portfiles, PortGroups, and 
base references that I’m rather fearful of the fallout from doing that at this 
point in time.

Whether we do that or not, the new llvm 10 series is going to be out soon. We 
can name that llvm-10, and deal with the differences that name might trigger 
somehow, if there are any, in the Portfiles, PortGroups, and base — or we can 
just call it llvm-10.0, clang-10.0, and lldb-10.0, and suck it up. That would 
likely cause less widespread wreckage in the many files that depend on these 
names, but might again come up with another slightly misnamed port in the 
future, where some future port named llvm-12.0 is actually llvm-12.2.0 or 

Either way, we either get a (possibly) less accurate portname, or we risk 
unexpected wreckage.

Open to opinions.


Reply via email to