On Friday, May 02, 2014 22:19:03 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Hi, > > On 02.05.2014 22:09, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Friday, May 02, 2014 20:45:55 Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > >> On 02.05.2014 19:57, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>> I suspect they would appreciate the patch since using the system LLVM > >>> (or > >>> at least updating to a newer one) is definitely in their plans. > >> > >> I hope so. LLVM 2.8 is really a bit outdated (from 2010). > > > > I harassed people on #clamav and got this: > Thanks. > > > <lattera> I could be wrong... llvm's not my area of expertise > > <lattera> I asked my coworker, Kevin, to take a look at that bugzilla > > ticket <lattera> after quick glance, he says he likes the patch overall > > > > That's encouraging, but I'm not entirely comfortable yet (from what I know > > the patch looks good too). How about we upload this patch to > > experimental and then we can see how it works out on multiple > > architectures? Once upstream reviews/acks the patch and we see how it > > works then we can go to unstable. > An upload to experimental seems like a good idea. > But keep in mind that experimental defaults to LLVM 3.4, while unstable > still defaults to LLVM 3.3 (and wheezy to LLVM 3.0).
Build-deps will only get pulled from Experimental if they aren't satisfied from Unstable, so we can do it with 3.3 or 3.4 depending on what you want. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Pkg-clamav-devel mailing list Pkg-clamav-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-clamav-devel
