LLVM 3.2: official stable port is still LLVM 3.1. Basesystem missing important LLVM pieces!

[Dimitry Andric]

On 2013-01-06 15:16, Erik Cederstrand wrote:
...
> I think the real problem is that LLVM and the related tools are build in one go, so you can't easily build llvm-config and others for the base version of LLVM.

Well, it would be easy enough to build llvm-config, but what should its
output be?  We do not install llvm/clang headers or libraries into the
system, so llvm-config would not give any meaningful -I or -L flags. :)


> llvm-config needs shared libraries that are not installed in base because they supposedly require a prohibitive amount of build time.

Again, build time is not the problem.  The libraries are already built,
but in static form; making them dynamic would not be that difficult, but
installing them would add another maintenance and compatibility burden.


> The LLVM port could be split up instead. There could be a devel/llvm-libs port that installed the shared libs for the base LLVM, and then a devel/llvm-config, devel/scan-build or devel/mclinker port that depends on the former port.

Yes, this seems to be the proper approach.  But, as far as I understand,
the ports system cannot yet do one work tree build, and package that up
in different packages, such as -libs, -devel, and so on.


> This might require that a larger part of the LLVM source tree is imported into src/contrib, though.

I am not sure what you mean by this.  Why would the ports require
something in the base system, other than a compiler?