Yes, we support 3.6 in 15.10. 3.7 is unsupported (and fails to build on
i386 and powerpc).
> Nothing is put into the alternative system.
yes, intended. Use llvm-config-3.7 explicitly, or prefix your command
with
PATH=/usr/lib/llvm-3.7/bin:$PATH
> So if llvm-3.7-runtime, and llvm-3.7 dev ar
In 15.10, llvm-runtime, and llvm-dev resolve to llvm-3.6-runtime, and
llvm-3.6-dev.
Nothing is put into the alternative system.
So if llvm-3.7-runtime, and llvm-3.7 dev are installed, there is really
no way to pick a default to switch between revisions.
If the installations at least added everyt
apt-get install llvm-runtime
apt-get install llvm-dev
--
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:
htt
Could someone explain how to use llvm-defaults to create the default
symlinks to the versioned binaries? It might help some of the people
subscribed to this bug.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.n
The alternatives system is a high level tool meant to unify this process
across all applications. It should be a solution flexible enough to
cover and even support any application level tools. If you see cause
for the alternatives system to make calls into llvm-defaults please go
ahead and add th
> Here is the thread that I started on debian-devel:
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00380.html
> "llvm-defaults provides symlinks /usr/bin/llvm-nm to the actual binaries."
This is the first time I have seen anyone mention "llvm-defaults" - you
say that it is supposed to automat
Here is the thread that I started on debian-devel:
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/06/msg00380.html
--
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 alterna
* It is going to be a pain to maintain and hard to use for users.
The alternatives system was designed/built/implemented to address these
issues. It's when this system is NOT used that multiple package
versions become a pain to maintain and hard to use for users.
If you've a better idea or a pro
I will discuss about this on debian-devel to have other opinions. I am
not sure what to do here...
--
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 m
There is a update-alternatives workaround for llvm documented at
http://kwangyulseo.com/2014/02/05/using-multiple-llvm-versions-on-
ubuntu/
--
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:
Relevant comment from Xorg upstream on supporting explicit "llvm-
version" naming in their build scripts:
"Mesa's build system supports and should only support officially supported
builds of upstream projects - LLVM's cmake and auto* build systems do not have
a switch to add a "-3.2" suffix to l
> 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 th
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: llvm-toolchain-snapshot (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/9914
While I might implement llvm-config on alternatives (patches are welcome), I
don't think that doing that for all llvm tools is reasonable.
It is going to be a pain to maintain and hard to use for users.
And, AFAIK, we don't have an equivalent to the port option.
--
You received this bug notific
Using update-alternatives goes for all the other LLVM-tools as well,
even though using llvm-config makes it a little easier to use.
This is the state of my LLVM tools in /usr/bin after installing 3.5. Had
I been able to select whether to use 3.5 or 3.4 and had all links
updated, then things would
** Also affects: llvm-toolchain-snapshot (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
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
FWIW, this just bit me when compiling the Crack language, which was
looking for llvm-config, not llvm-config-3.2.
I agree with mornfall above that if only 3.2 is installed, the
alternatives system should be used to update llvm-config.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a membe
Well, a major downside of not providing alternatives is that installing
only llvm-3.2 (say) doesn't make it possible to compile and run 3rd-
party LLVM-based software without substantial tweaking. We have modified
configure script specially for Ubuntu/Debian to look for llvm-config-3.2
and llvm-con
If you don't understand why, then there is no point in you not providing
an alternatives in the package(s). The only reason for not using
alternatives would be to force your viewpoints onto your users, which
you should be doing even in cases were you are absolutely positive doing
this would break
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
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:
Mi
Users and upstream want a specific version of LLVM.
For example, if you have a look to the current trunk of LLVM (future 3.3), you
will see that many headers paths have been changed.
Usually, upstream provides a way to change the path/version to llvm-config (or
should).
Maybe I don't understan
It's sad that this alternative should be set by the user running
./configure. However in most cases that is the site admin so there is a
much smaller set of users who would be effected, they would have to ask
an admin to adjust the alternatives for there build.
This discussion has only partly to
What is the overall solution, wouldn't that include users as well as
packagers? You seem to be only thinking of packagers, you'll have to
understand that you shouldn't do that when making packages.
You want packagers to do X, does that mean you are going to ignore the
site administrators?
Altern
To continue with meaningless complaints, I think Matthias is right.
We want packagers to explicitly use version X or Y of LLVM.
If they want to use the recommended version of LLVM, they just have to depend
on the "llvm" package.
If you think we are wrong, please provide an example where the
alt
Build scripts can and do call into all sorts of other applications, any
of which can be an alternative. What protects the usual build from harm
is the use of a minimal system. To support custom builds of other
packages, please make use of the alternatives system and quit with your
meaningless com
no, alternatives are not used to hide ABI or API changes. You should
explicitly specify the tool you want to use. And there is nothing in
your examples which affects building a package, so these alternatives
cannot have any influence to the way a package or software is built.
--
You received this
I think you misunderstand the alternatives system. It's used for things
that are much more different then simply ABI or API changes. It
selected completed different applications, Unity VS Gnome VS KDE. The
show stopper for alternatives is at X vs console applications, now if
llvm-3.2 was a conso
it would be plain invalid to handle something via alternatives, which
changes both ABI's and API's so rapidly. The alternatives system is not
meant to be used for that.
** Changed in: llvm-3.2 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Invalid
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Inva
The alternative system fully supports recommendations, please use it to
allow the use of non-recommended versions as was intended.
--
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
For now, llvm-config is provided by the llvm package.
It is a symlink pointing on the recommended version of llvm.
If you want to get llvm-config for llvm 3.2, try /usr/bin/llvm-
config-3.2
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubun
I see it now. On my quantal, symlinks are installed so llvm-link points
to ../lib/llvm-3.1/bin/llvm-link, which is why I didn't notice a
problem. There is still no alternative to configure, though.
On raring, llvm-3.2 doesn't even seem to install any symlinks, but that
is a different bug I will ha
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: Incomplete => Confirmed
--
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 t
Not sure, must have been precise-updates or quantal.
--
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:
http
I don't see this problem with llvm-3.1 on quantal, but I do see it on
llvm-3.2 in raring.
Which release are you using?
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => New
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Incomplete
** Changed in: llvm-3.2 (Ubuntu)
Statu
** Also affects: llvm-3.2 (Ubuntu)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: llvm-3.2 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/991493
Ti
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: llvm-3.1 (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
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:
Mi
36 matches
Mail list logo
