On Mon, Feb 05, 2024 at 11:44:37PM +, Sam James wrote:>
> 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 go
Sam James writes:
> Michał Górny 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
Michał Górny 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 r
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 sh
