> FWIW, this just bit me when compiling the Crack language, which was looking for llvm-config, not llvm-config-3.2.
Yes, Xorg is the same, the build script looks for llvm-config and fails otherwise. > no, alternatives are not used to hide ABI or API changes. You should > explicitly specify the tool you want to use. > Users and upstream want a specific version of LLVM. I don't see how llvm is different to automake, or cc/c++, or java, which all support update-alternatives? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991493 Title: Missing llvm-config alternatives. To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/llvm-3.1/+bug/991493/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
