No, we don't need it that to upgrade llvm, but I need to decide soon. -- Zhihao Yuan On Dec 5, 2011 10:16 AM, "Brooks Davis" <bro...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 01:28:33AM -0600, Mark Linimon wrote: > > I would like to hold off on any more disruptive changes to the tree > > until we can get this release out the door. If that means devel/clang > > needs to stay at its current value (and only clang-devel updated), then > > that's fine. > > We don't actually need to add a bsd.pure.mk to upgrade llvm. We would > need to complete the repocopy in ports/163030 and change the build and > run depends in lang/pure which would change the depends of the 12ish > ports involved. Similar changes are needed in a couple other ports. > > I'll leave it up to portmgr to decide if that's too disruptive. IMO if > any change of this scope (an upgrade triggering less than dozen rebuilds, > mostly of ports that aren't widely used) should be approved, it should > be this one given our general toolchain focus. > > -- Brooks > _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"