Drop LLVM from [community]

[Ranguvar-2]

Hello,

The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to request
that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want to
bring it back into [community].

Thanks :)

[Ionut Biru]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to request
> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want to
> bring it back into [community].
>
> Thanks :)
>

if you have an PKGBUILD which has split support , why don't you open a
feature request instead of asking to be moved in aur?

--
Ionut

[Ranguvar-2]

Because the package is _orphaned_ in community, so I figured this would be
the best route?
Should I open a feature request instead?

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@...> wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to
> request
> > that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
> > overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
> > package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want
> to
> > bring it back into [community].
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
>
> if you have an PKGBUILD which has split support , why don't you open a
> feature request instead of asking to be moved in aur?
>
> --
> Ionut
>

[Ionut Biru]

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
> Because the package is _orphaned_ in community, so I figured this would be
> the best route?
> Should I open a feature request instead?
>

orphaned doesn't mean that are unmaintained. the best thing is to send
on bugtracker. all bugs from orphaned packages are assigned to me and
daniel


--
Ionut

[Ray Rashif]

2009/10/31 Ionut Biru <biru.ionut@...>

> On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 7:28 PM, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
> > Because the package is _orphaned_ in community, so I figured this would
> be
> > the best route?
> > Should I open a feature request instead?
> >
>
> orphaned doesn't mean that are unmaintained. the best thing is to send
> on bugtracker. all bugs from orphaned packages are assigned to me and
> daniel
>

When orphaned, another TU can update the orphan as and when needed. Packages
are dropped when they have been orphaned for too long and have garnered 0
interest in keeping up-to-date. I don't think that's the case with this one.

[Andrea Scarpino-3]

On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to request
> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want to
> bring it back into [community].
I vote for "move it on AUR"

--
Andrea `bash` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer

[Evangelos Foutras-2]

Andrea Scarpino wrote:

> On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
>  
>> Hello,
>>
>> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to request
>> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
>> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
>> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want to
>> bring it back into [community].
>>    
> I vote for "move it on AUR"

I believe it should be kept in [community] as it takes a considerable
amount of time to compile (around 10 minutes on a C2D 2.66 GHz, using
both cores).

I must say I know close to nothing about LLVM, but I'm willing to
maintain it and learn along the way. So, unless a more knowledgeable TU
shows interest, I'll adopt it in [community] and upload a new package
(based on Ranguvar's PKGBUILD) in the following weeks.

[Evangelos Foutras-2]

Evangelos Foutras wrote:

> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>> On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
>>  
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to
>>> request
>>> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
>>> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
>>> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they
>>> want to
>>> bring it back into [community].
>>>    
>> I vote for "move it on AUR"
>
> I believe it should be kept in [community] as it takes a considerable
> amount of time to compile (around 10 minutes on a C2D 2.66 GHz, using
> both cores).
>
> I must say I know close to nothing about LLVM, but I'm willing to
> maintain it and learn along the way. So, unless a more knowledgeable
> TU shows interest, I'll adopt it in [community] and upload a new
> package (based on Ranguvar's PKGBUILD) in the following weeks.

I've uploaded llvm 2.6-1 to [community-testing]. It doesn't include
clang, as I believe it should be built as a separate package. I think
it's possible to download both llvm and clang tarballs, place clang
inside the tools subdirectory and run `make install' from there. We'll
need to investigate this possibility.

Testing of the uploaded packages would be appreciated. :)

[Imanol Celaya]

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@...> wrote:

> Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>>
>> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>>>
>>> On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to
>>>> request
>>>> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
>>>> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
>>>> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they want
>>>> to
>>>> bring it back into [community].
>>>>
>>>
>>> I vote for "move it on AUR"
>>
>> I believe it should be kept in [community] as it takes a considerable
>> amount of time to compile (around 10 minutes on a C2D 2.66 GHz, using both
>> cores).
>>
>> I must say I know close to nothing about LLVM, but I'm willing to maintain
>> it and learn along the way. So, unless a more knowledgeable TU shows
>> interest, I'll adopt it in [community] and upload a new package (based on
>> Ranguvar's PKGBUILD) in the following weeks.
>
> I've uploaded llvm 2.6-1 to [community-testing]. It doesn't include clang,
> as I believe it should be built as a separate package. I think it's possible
> to download both llvm and clang tarballs, place clang inside the tools
> subdirectory and run `make install' from there. We'll need to investigate
> this possibility.
>
> Testing of the uploaded packages would be appreciated. :)
>

I've found an error:

[ilcra1989@acheron ~]$ llvmc test.c
llvmc: Can't find program 'llvm-gcc'

[Ranguvar-2]

That's LLVM trying to use the a frontend which you don't have.
You can install llvm-gcc to make it work, but I bet the AUR package isn't
compatible with our new LLVM yet, I'll work on fixing that for the AUR
maintainer once we finalize LLVM 2.6.

Here's a reworked LLVM/Clang PKGBUILD, with some improvements from
Evangelos's PKGBUILD (and a number of fixes to it, as well).

I removed the perl dep because perl's in [core], for example.

On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Imanol Celaya <
ornitorrincos@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@...>
> wrote:
> > Evangelos Foutras wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello,
> >>>>
> >>>> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to
> >>>> request
> >>>> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
> >>>> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
> >>>> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they
> want
> >>>> to
> >>>> bring it back into [community].
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I vote for "move it on AUR"
> >>
> >> I believe it should be kept in [community] as it takes a considerable
> >> amount of time to compile (around 10 minutes on a C2D 2.66 GHz, using
> both
> >> cores).
> >>
> >> I must say I know close to nothing about LLVM, but I'm willing to
> maintain
> >> it and learn along the way. So, unless a more knowledgeable TU shows
> >> interest, I'll adopt it in [community] and upload a new package (based
> on
> >> Ranguvar's PKGBUILD) in the following weeks.
> >
> > I've uploaded llvm 2.6-1 to [community-testing]. It doesn't include
> clang,
> > as I believe it should be built as a separate package. I think it's
> possible
> > to download both llvm and clang tarballs, place clang inside the tools
> > subdirectory and run `make install' from there. We'll need to investigate
> > this possibility.
> >
> > Testing of the uploaded packages would be appreciated. :)
> >
>
> I've found an error:
>
> [ilcra1989@acheron ~]$ llvmc test.c
> llvmc: Can't find program 'llvm-gcc'
>

[Evangelos Foutras-2]

Ranguvar wrote:

> That's LLVM trying to use the a frontend which you don't have.
> You can install llvm-gcc to make it work, but I bet the AUR package isn't
> compatible with our new LLVM yet, I'll work on fixing that for the AUR
> maintainer once we finalize LLVM 2.6.
>
> Here's a reworked LLVM/Clang PKGBUILD, with some improvements from
> Evangelos's PKGBUILD (and a number of fixes to it, as well).
>
> I removed the perl dep because perl's in [core], for example.
>
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Imanol Celaya <
> ornitorrincos@...> wrote:
>
>  
>> On Sat, Oct 31, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Evangelos Foutras <foutrelis@...>
>> wrote:
>>    
>>> Evangelos Foutras wrote:
>>>      
>>>> Andrea Scarpino wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>> On 30/10/2009, Ranguvar <ranguvar@...> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The package 'llvm' is an orphaned [communuity] package.  I'd like to
>>>>>> request
>>>>>> that it me moved to the AUR so I can maintain it (I have an update and
>>>>>> overhaul ready) and I can also create a 'clang' package for it. (split
>>>>>> package for llvm AND clang)  Then it can be adopted by a TU if they
>>>>>>            
>> want
>>    
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> bring it back into [community].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>            
>>>>> I vote for "move it on AUR"
>>>>>          
>>>> I believe it should be kept in [community] as it takes a considerable
>>>> amount of time to compile (around 10 minutes on a C2D 2.66 GHz, using
>>>>        
>> both
>>    
>>>> cores).
>>>>
>>>> I must say I know close to nothing about LLVM, but I'm willing to
>>>>        
>> maintain
>>    
>>>> it and learn along the way. So, unless a more knowledgeable TU shows
>>>> interest, I'll adopt it in [community] and upload a new package (based
>>>>        
>> on
>>    
>>>> Ranguvar's PKGBUILD) in the following weeks.
>>>>        
>>> I've uploaded llvm 2.6-1 to [community-testing]. It doesn't include
>>>      
>> clang,
>>    
>>> as I believe it should be built as a separate package. I think it's
>>>      
>> possible
>>    
>>> to download both llvm and clang tarballs, place clang inside the tools
>>> subdirectory and run `make install' from there. We'll need to investigate
>>> this possibility.
>>>
>>> Testing of the uploaded packages would be appreciated. :)
>>>
>>>      
>> I've found an error:
>>
>> [ilcra1989@acheron ~]$ llvmc test.c
>> llvmc: Can't find program 'llvm-gcc'
>>
>>    

Let's continue the discussion on the related report on the bug tracker.

http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/16920