Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes: > Hello, > > Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will > grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR > soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose > creating dedicated categories for these packages and moving them there. > > If not anything else, this will help consistently applying flags > and keywords to these packages (`/etc/portage/package.*` accept > wildcards).
I quite like the idea of having a category to ease keywording and testing. > > My initial idea would be to use two categories: one for the toolchain > packages, another for runtimes, e.g.: > > llvm-core/ > clang > clang-common > clang-runtime > clang-toolchain-symlinks > lld > lld-toolchain-symlinks > lldb > llvm > llvm-common > llvm-toolchain-symlinks > llvmgold > > llvm-runtimes/ > compiler-rt > compiler-rt-sanitizers > libclc > libcxx > libcxxabi > libomp (-> openmp?) > llvm-offload (-> offload) > llvm-unwind (-> unwind?) > I'm not sure if I'm sold on *two*. What happens for stuff like mlir where it's not a runtime but it's arguably more of one than core? It just doesn't feel like the division works great. Or maybe it's just because I feel like llvm-core will keep growing and llvm-runtimes won't. > clang-python, lit and llvm-ocaml would remain in their language > categories. > > WDYT? I'm going to start another reply for a subthread. thanks, sam
