On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 02:56:00PM +0000, Al Stone wrote: > Arthur, > > It seems sort of overkill to do a whole new ITP for LLVM. If you're > interested, you could take over the maintenance of the existing > LLVM packages, perhaps even put them into team maintenance. I haven't > had the time need to maintain the packages, and haven't put it up for > adoption yet, mostly because no one else has come forward as willing > to do the work...
OTOH llvm 2.x is not backward compatible with the 1.x series, and comes some brand new tools, meaning that such a package will go through NEW and stuff like that anyways. It _is_ a brand new package on many aspects. It's unclear to me if llvm should continue to exist in the archive or not, but I disagree with the fact that an ITP is an overkill. Cheers, -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [EMAIL PROTECTED] OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpsh8xxheLCc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
