search for: d41808

...this. >> >> Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name. > > In light of the new versioning scheme, this looks very reasonable to me. > As it seems that nobody objected, could you approve the two patches? https://reviews.llvm.org/D41869 - LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41808 - Clang Thanks Sylvestre -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180322/238e1f9d/attachment.sig...

...ecame 7). Packages are now called clang-7 instead of clang-6.0 I believe I have been able to rename all occurrences that I found and I haven't seen anyone complaining (besides the few expected issues). Patches are available here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D41869 - LLVM https://reviews.llvm.org/D41808 - Clang AFAIK, nothing is needed for lldb or lld. This is also the path that gcc took (and Debian is doing the same from gcc-5). Any comments or objections? Thanks, Sylvestre

On 17 Mar 2018, at 14:48, Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Context: I have been packaging the llvm toolchain for Debian & Ubuntu > and also providing these packages on https://apt.llvm.org/. > One of the goal is to have different versions co-installable. For that, > I am renaming the binaries and libraries. > > Now, as we are not