Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Subslots for sys-devel/llvm and sys-devel/clang
On 2020-09-24 12:50, Michał Górny wrote: > That's really weird, point releases should not include breaking > changes. Could you try to figure out why this happens? Also, are you > aware if 9.0.0 vs 9.0.1 had the same problem? Maybe it's one time > upstream screwup. Let's hope so, this was very much an unpleasant surprise. Regarding slot 9, I do not remember anyone complaining about it - but then again, I think we only began supporting it in opencl-clang after llvm-9.0.1 had already been stabilised. > A somewhat ugly alternative would be to ~ dep on specific version and > make revbumps for minor llvm bumps. Somewhat ugly indeed, could be worse though - at least dev-util/spirv-llvm-translator and dev-libs/opencl-clang ebuilds support exactly one llvm/clang major version each so no ugly "|| ( ver1:9 ver2:10 ver3:11 )" dependencies will be required. -- Marecki signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Subslots for sys-devel/llvm and sys-devel/clang
Dnia September 24, 2020 10:35:12 AM UTC, Marek Szuba napisał(a): >Hi all, > >While fighting with https://bugs.gentoo.org/743992 I discovered that it >is necessary for dev-libs/opencl-clang to be rebuilt after EVERY update >of LLVM and Clang - even such a supposedly trivial one as from 10.0.0 >to >10.0.1. To the best of my knowledge there is currently no way in-slot >LLVM/Clang updates to trigger rebuilds of dependent packages, and the >simplest (only?) way of doing this would be to add subslots to >sys-devel/llvm and sys-devel/clang ebuilds. > >Therefore: > >1. Is the above correct? I shall be happy to be proven wrong if there >is >a simpler way of achieving this after all; That's really weird, point releases should not include breaking changes. Could you try to figure out why this happens? Also, are you aware if 9.0.0 vs 9.0.1 had the same problem? Maybe it's one time upstream screwup. > >2. If I am not wrong about the current state of affairs, what are your >opinions about adding subslots to LLVM and Clang ebuilds? I would like to avoid that, as it would prevent us from using ':=' to match slots, and cause unnecessary rebuilds in lots of packages. A somewhat ugly alternative would be to ~ dep on specific version and make revbumps for minor llvm bumps. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
[gentoo-dev] [RFC] Subslots for sys-devel/llvm and sys-devel/clang
Hi all, While fighting with https://bugs.gentoo.org/743992 I discovered that it is necessary for dev-libs/opencl-clang to be rebuilt after EVERY update of LLVM and Clang - even such a supposedly trivial one as from 10.0.0 to 10.0.1. To the best of my knowledge there is currently no way in-slot LLVM/Clang updates to trigger rebuilds of dependent packages, and the simplest (only?) way of doing this would be to add subslots to sys-devel/llvm and sys-devel/clang ebuilds. Therefore: 1. Is the above correct? I shall be happy to be proven wrong if there is a simpler way of achieving this after all; 2. If I am not wrong about the current state of affairs, what are your opinions about adding subslots to LLVM and Clang ebuilds? -- Marecki signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
