On Wed, May 04, 2022 at 09:50:47AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote: > > > Isn't the purpose of the clang-local(1) to document local changes to the > > > system compiler, -fsanitize-minimal-runtime feels like a special case as > > > we do not have the complete sanitizer runtime. > > > > What do you suggest as a good location where people will > > find that information easily ? > > Who knows, but probably not in clang-local.1 > > I actually find it a bit offensive when a base document has to mention > something not in base. While here, let me make a comment on the
This is a valid objection, and there were other concerns about clang-local.1 not being an adequate place to mention this, so I'm withdrawing this diff. > proposal's use of the token "devel/llvm" -- that is so completely obtuse > and out of touch with the potential user base. The average person will > not understand that at all. It is hugely presumptious that anyone > searching for this compiler tooling will be familiar with the "ports" > tree-heiracry; the reality is NOONE uses ports, instead they use > packages with has a completely different namespace, and thus > "devel/llvm" is completely meaningless to a person who uses packages. That's a nice slogan idea for a future ports hackathon t-shirt: "the reality is NOONE uses ports". On a more serious note though, building from ports was the only way to have -stable packages before we started to offer -stable binary packages with OpenBSD 6.5, and it is still the only way for users of architectures for which those packages are not provided. It's thus reasonable to assume most of our users are familiar with the ports tree hierarchy terminology.
