In message: <20091222190244.ga56...@freebsd.org>
Roman Divacky <rdiva...@freebsd.org> writes:
: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 04:49:48PM +0100, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
: > Den 22/12/2009 kl. 15.18 skrev Roman Divacky:
: >
: > > well... llvm provides its own assembler so if the need for newer binutils
: > > comes from need of newer as I believe llvm can help here. or is the linker
: > > the problem?
: >
: > It does? I was under the impression that this was still very much a WIP
(http://llvm.org/releases/2.6/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#mc) and that LLVM still
uses the system assembler and linker.
:
: yes, it's a WIP. what I meant was that there's not so much pressure to import
: newer "as" as we might be getting that from llvm anyway in the time frame...
I'd rather counter with a contrary view. Given the choice between a
badly licensed, but known to be working tool and a well licensed, but
mostly vapor-ware tool, I'm inclined to go with the former...
I've taken a look at what NetBSD has done in this area, and they have
one sub-tree for all gplv3 code. Can svn easily exclude a tree? I
know one can mirror without directories with cvsup...
I think that going the ports route likely isn't going to work too
well. It can be made to work, but you need more infrastructure in
place and it is less integrated and tested :(
Warner
_______________________________________________
svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
