Binary linux packages v1.5

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Binary linux packages v1.5

Oleg Smolsky
Hey all,

is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy :)

Best regards,
Oleg.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary linux packages v1.5

John Criswell
Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
> that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy :)

We don't have Debian packages for LLVM 1.5, but we do have a
pre-compiled GCC frontend for i386/Linux.  Does that not work on Debian?

>
> Best regards,
> Oleg.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-- John T.

--
John T. Criswell
Research Programmer
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"It's today!" said Piglet. "My favorite day," said Pooh.

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary linux packages v1.5

Al Stone
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 16:27 -0500, John Criswell wrote:
> Oleg Smolsky wrote:
> > is anyone gonna make a debian package for stable or testing? It's just
> > that building llvm/cfrontend drives me crazy :)

Bug fixes for 1.4 should be uploaded today or tomorrow; 1.4
has to get uploaded first in order to fix some outstanding
bugs.

> We don't have Debian packages for LLVM 1.5, but we do have a
> pre-compiled GCC frontend for i386/Linux.  Does that not work on Debian?

For 1.5, I want to see if 1.4 can get accepted into sarge
before I upload it into the official archive for testing or
unstable.  In the meantime, though, I should have the 1.5
packages available in a day or two (I'm playing with the
alternatives system so I can install multiple versions at
once).  I'll post a reply to this thread as soon as I get
them done, with a note on where to get them from.

This actually brings up a question for the list: I'm assuming
the 1.5 versions should use the 1.5 branch -- (1) is there
any reason to change that assumption (I certainly can't think
of any)?  and (2) is there any need/desire for a set of packages
from the CVS HEAD (sort of like the gcc-snapshot packages)?

Sorry about the delay -- I've been traveling a lot the last
few weeks and it's hard to work on stuff when the only time
you have is between flights at the airport :).  The stupid
airlines _never_ delay flights when you _want_ them to...

> >
> > Best regards,
> > Oleg.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > LLVM Developers mailing list
> > [hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> > http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
> -- John T.
>
--
Ciao,
al
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Al Stone                                      Alter Ego:
Open Source and Linux R&D                     Debian Developer
Hewlett-Packard Company                       http://www.debian.org
E-mail: [hidden email]                        [hidden email]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Binary linux packages v1.5

Chris Lattner
On Thu, 19 May 2005, Al Stone wrote:
> once).  I'll post a reply to this thread as soon as I get
> them done, with a note on where to get them from.

Cool, thanks Al!

> This actually brings up a question for the list: I'm assuming
> the 1.5 versions should use the 1.5 branch -- (1) is there
> any reason to change that assumption (I certainly can't think
> of any)?  and (2) is there any need/desire for a set of packages
> from the CVS HEAD (sort of like the gcc-snapshot packages)?

AFAIK, the 1.5 branch is good.  There are already minor improvements in
LLVM CVS that make it better, but that will always be the case.  I can't
say if #2 would be useful to people (others should speak up!), but an
official 1.5 snapshot would be very very nice. :)

-Chris

--
http://nondot.org/sabre/
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/

_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
[hidden email]         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev