Re: *-devel ports (for llvm and gcc) and dependency declaration "issues"

2016-05-13 Thread René J . V . Bertin
On Friday May 13 2016 03:27:54 Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> and it's probably a good idea to leave that style in >> place even after the release version of the dependency is produced. It's >> probably not because llvm 3.8.1 goes stable that there will be no 3.8.1+i >> that >> could be tested as a -d

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-13 Thread Ryan Schmidt
> On May 12, 2016, at 3:51 AM, René J. V. Bertin wrote: > > Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >>> is released as a stable version it should be renamed to llvm-3.9. The >>> ports llvm-3.9 and llvm-3.9-devel are still drop-in replacements. >> >> This makes it much more difficult on developers when the ti

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-12 Thread René J . V . Bertin
Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> is released as a stable version it should be renamed to llvm-3.9. The >> ports llvm-3.9 and llvm-3.9-devel are still drop-in replacements. > > This makes it much more difficult on developers when the time comes for a port > to graduate from development to stable status, as

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-11 Thread Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia
> On May 5, 2016, at 11:22, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > > On May 4, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: >> >> On May 4, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> On May 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: >>> Users should easily see which port provides a stable version

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-05 Thread Ryan Schmidt
On May 4, 2016, at 10:35 AM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote: > > On May 4, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> On May 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> >>> Users should easily see which port provides a stable version and which >>> tracks a pre-release. >> >> Maybe there's anoth

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-04 Thread Bradley Giesbrecht
> On May 4, 2016, at 7:47 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > >> On May 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> >> On 2016-05-04 15:20, Ryan Schmidt wrote: In my opinion, llvm-3.8 and llvm-3.9 should really have a -devel prefix as long as they provide pre-releases. The same also applies

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-04 Thread Ryan Schmidt
> On May 4, 2016, at 9:38 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: > > On 2016-05-04 15:20, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> In my opinion, llvm-3.8 and llvm-3.9 should really have a -devel >>> prefix as long as they provide pre-releases. The same also applies >>> to gcc6. With the *-devel naming scheme it would be easy

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc

2016-05-04 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2016-05-04 15:20, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> In my opinion, llvm-3.8 and llvm-3.9 should really have a -devel >> prefix as long as they provide pre-releases. The same also applies >> to gcc6. With the *-devel naming scheme it would be easy to >> identify the latest stable version. > > I disagree. W

Re: *-devel ports for llvm and gcc (was: Re: automatic choice of a default +llvmXY variant via selected compiler?)

2016-05-04 Thread Ryan Schmidt
> On Apr 29, 2016, at 9:19 AM, Rainer Müller wrote: > > On 2016-04-29 04:37, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> When multiple version variants are available, we usually suggest you >> default to the latest stable version. Right now that's llvm-3.7. > > I was surprised it is not the llvm-3.8 port, as that v

*-devel ports for llvm and gcc (was: Re: automatic choice of a default +llvmXY variant via selected compiler?)

2016-04-29 Thread Rainer Müller
On 2016-04-29 04:37, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > When multiple version variants are available, we usually suggest you > default to the latest stable version. Right now that's llvm-3.7. I was surprised it is not the llvm-3.8 port, as that version is stable upstream... In my opinion, llvm-3.8 and llvm-3.