Hi, > On 23 Apr 2020, at 8:15 pm, Ken Cunningham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The suggested renaming of the clang/llvm/lldb ports to > > clang-10 > > instead of > > clang-10.0 > > going forward from clang-10 onwards will have repercussions in a number of > places, should it proceed, as per the PR. > > For one, this does not work any more: > > configure.compiler=macports-clang-10
That is not at all unexpected. The PR https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/6902 <https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/pull/6902> just adds the new compiler as a new port, so does not update any of the port groups to add the new compiler to the required lists, to make it available as an option, e.g. https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/_resources/port1.0/group/compilers-1.0.tcl <https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/_resources/port1.0/group/compilers-1.0.tcl> Not that I am suggesting the above PR should change the above PG. I would suggest making those changes as a separate change, following the commit of the compiler itself. Just adding the new compiler cannot cause any wreckage, as nothing will use it, in the first instance. Note adding a new compiler to the various places it needs to be done in the port groups is not hard. Its a little more complicated this time due to the chance in numbering scheme, but still should be possible. So I would propose first concentrating on just committing the llvm-10 suite of ports, and worry about the integrating into the macports build system later on. cheers Chris > > and that is no doubt just the beginning. > > It was mentioned that clang-10.0 would also cause wreckage due to the 2-digit > version number, and that could be so -- I am not completely sure how base > currently sets that up. > > Best, > > Ken
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
