Hey all,
is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy 
Best regards,
Oleg.
Oleg Smolsky wrote:
Hey all,
is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy
We don't have Debian packages for LLVM 1.5, but we do have a pre-compiled GCC frontend for i386/Linux. Does that not work on Debian?
Best regards,
Oleg._______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
-- John T.
Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
> that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy
Bug fixes for 1.4 should be uploaded today or tomorrow; 1.4
has to get uploaded first in order to fix some outstanding
bugs.
We don't have Debian packages for LLVM 1.5, but we do have a
pre-compiled GCC frontend for i386/Linux. Does that not work on Debian?
For 1.5, I want to see if 1.4 can get accepted into sarge
before I upload it into the official archive for testing or
unstable. In the meantime, though, I should have the 1.5
packages available in a day or two (I'm playing with the
alternatives system so I can install multiple versions at
once). I'll post a reply to this thread as soon as I get
them done, with a note on where to get them from.
This actually brings up a question for the list: I'm assuming
the 1.5 versions should use the 1.5 branch -- (1) is there
any reason to change that assumption (I certainly can't think
of any)? and (2) is there any need/desire for a set of packages
from the CVS HEAD (sort of like the gcc-snapshot packages)?
Sorry about the delay -- I've been traveling a lot the last
few weeks and it's hard to work on stuff when the only time
you have is between flights at the airport :). The stupid
airlines _never_ delay flights when you _want_ them to...
once). I'll post a reply to this thread as soon as I get
them done, with a note on where to get them from.
Cool, thanks Al!
This actually brings up a question for the list: I'm assuming
the 1.5 versions should use the 1.5 branch -- (1) is there
any reason to change that assumption (I certainly can't think
of any)? and (2) is there any need/desire for a set of packages
from the CVS HEAD (sort of like the gcc-snapshot packages)?
AFAIK, the 1.5 branch is good. There are already minor improvements in LLVM CVS that make it better, but that will always be the case. I can't say if #2 would be useful to people (others should speak up!), but an official 1.5 snapshot would be very very nice.
-Chris