llvm dev - Mar 2016 - Status of the official LLVM APT repositories

On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> This is still maintained. However the cmake transition (for both 3.8 and 
> 3.9) wasn't simple... While it should be fine for debian, it might need
> more work for old Ubuntu (back port of cmake)
Hi Sylvestre,

Thank you for the clarification! Any ETAs on when the APT repositories are 
going to be updated with LLVM 3.8 & 3.9 builds?

I'm not sure how clean / dirty of a solution you'd be okay with, but
I'd
just point out that CMake developers provide working binary tarballs for 
Linux with every release at https://cmake.org/download/ . So, if you are 
not a purist and/or need the CMake backport for some other reasons 
anyways, it's as simple as just unpacking it on the builder and adding to 
the front of the PATH variable. I use this approach on my Ubuntu 12.04 
(Precise) builders, as a proper backport simply isn't worth the effort for 
my purposes, since they are going to be decommissioned rather soon anyways 
and it's working very nicely.

-- 
Sincerely yours,
Yury V. Zaytsev

Le 09/03/2016 à 21:44, Yury V. Zaytsev a écrit :
> On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
>
>> This is still maintained. However the cmake transition (for both 3.8
>> and 3.9) wasn't simple... While it should be fine for debian, it
>> might need more work for old Ubuntu (back port of cmake)
>
> Hi Sylvestre,
>
> Thank you for the clarification! Any ETAs on when the APT repositories
> are going to be updated with LLVM 3.8 & 3.9 builds?
>
I fixed the snapshot builds today in Debian itself (
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/llvm-toolchain-snapshot_1:3.9~svn262954-1.html
)
Hopefully, most of the builds are going to be OK.
> I'm not sure how clean / dirty of a solution you'd be okay with,
but
> I'd just point out that CMake developers provide working binary
> tarballs for Linux with every release at https://cmake.org/download/ .
> So, if you are not a purist and/or need the CMake backport for some
> other reasons anyways, it's as simple as just unpacking it on the
> builder and adding to the front of the PATH variable. I use this
> approach on my Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise) builders, as a proper backport
> simply isn't worth the effort for my purposes, since they are going to
> be decommissioned rather soon anyways and it's working very nicely.
>
I will give it a try.


Thanks,

Sylvestre

On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Le 09/03/2016 à 21:44, Yury V. Zaytsev a écrit :
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:
> >
> >> This is still maintained. However the cmake transition (for both
3.8
> >> and 3.9) wasn't simple... While it should be fine for debian,
it
> >> might need more work for old Ubuntu (back port of cmake)
> >
> > Hi Sylvestre,
> >
> > Thank you for the clarification! Any ETAs on when the APT repositories
> > are going to be updated with LLVM 3.8 & 3.9 builds?
> >
> I fixed the snapshot builds today in Debian itself (
>
>
https://ftp-master.debian.org/new/llvm-toolchain-snapshot_1:3.9~svn262954-1.html
> )
> Hopefully, most of the builds are going to be OK.
>
> > I'm not sure how clean / dirty of a solution you'd be okay
with, but
> > I'd just point out that CMake developers provide working binary
> > tarballs for Linux with every release at https://cmake.org/download/ .
> > So, if you are not a purist and/or need the CMake backport for some
> > other reasons anyways, it's as simple as just unpacking it on the
> > builder and adding to the front of the PATH variable. I use this
> > approach on my Ubuntu 12.04 (Precise) builders, as a proper backport
> > simply isn't worth the effort for my purposes, since they are
going to
> > be decommissioned rather soon anyways and it's working very
nicely.
> >
> I will give it a try.
>
>
Thank you very much for working on this!
The LDC team is using Travis CI to test LDC against LLVM 3.5-3.9 and we
depend on these APT repositories: Travis CI is using Ubuntu Precise.
LLVM 3.8 is available (svn 257166), but LLVM 3.9 is not [1].

Best regards,
  Johan Engelen

[1] Tested 7 days ago,
https://github.com/travis-ci/apt-package-whitelist/issues/2671
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160312/52cf00ec/attachment.html>