Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes:

> Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
>> Hi,
>>
>> TL;DR: Given that (not really surprising) the current approach for LLVM
>> dependencies doesn't work, I think it's time to give up and introduce
>> LLVM_TARGETS.  This would probably mean introduce llvm-r1.eclass.
>>
>> However, since random apps tend to require old versions of LLVM, I do
>> wonder if we should set the default value globally, or have the eclass
>> generate IUSE defaults, so that everything works out of the box.
>>
>
> I need to think about this bit.
>
>>
>> The problem roughly is that right now we rely on depstrings like:
>>
>> DEPEND="
>>   <sys-devel/clang-19:=
>>   <sys-devel/llvm-19:=
>>   || (
>>     ( sys-devel/clang:18 sys-devel/llvm:18 )
>>     ( sys-devel/clang:17 sys-devel/llvm:17 )
>>     ( sys-devel/clang:16 sys-devel/llvm:16 )
>>   )
>> "
>>
>> This kinda works, in the sense that it will enforce that you have
>> a single matching version of LLVM+Clang, and the eclass will use it. 
>> However, the := deps on top may be entirely mismatched.  For example, if
>> you have llvm:18 and clang:17 (+ llvm:17) installed, you'd get:
>>
>>   sys-devel/clang:17=
>>   sys-devel/llvm:18=
>>
>> When more packages land on the list, this could lead to quite a mess.
>>
>> So what'd we go for would effectively be:
>>
>> DEPEND="
>>   llvm_target_16? ( sys-devel/clang:16 sys-devel/llvm:16 )
>>   llvm_target_17? ( sys-devel/clang:17 sys-devel/llvm:17 )
>>   llvm_target_18? ( sys-devel/clang:18 sys-devel/llvm:18 )
>> "
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> We should mention that https://bugs.gentoo.org/923228 was the motivation
> that tipped us over the edge here.
>
> We should also consider the https://bugs.gentoo.org/880671 /
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/821955 case, as I think this is going to end up
> solving that too, actually.
>

I suppose it will fix https://bugs.gentoo.org/919150 for us too.

> But yeah, I like it. It solves a request we've had from users for a
> while ("let me choose") and it solves these silly dep games.
>
> Thank you!


Reply via email to