| 1 |
Hello Fabian, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 10:09:44AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> I think I understand your points: |
| 6 |
> - I don't understand why systems get messed up xcode-wise either, but |
| 7 |
> I'm sure not everyone has root access to fix it |
| 8 |
> - My current workaround works currently, indeed, dunno about the future |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Agreed. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> - Doing more patchwork is discouraged by llvm maintainer(s?), |
| 13 |
> didn't like my above patch, and in fact told me to leave the llvm |
| 14 |
> ebuilds alone because the patches are not acceptable/accepted by |
| 15 |
> upstream, if you got ideas for this... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Under these conditions I don't have any great ideas either. Obviously, |
| 18 |
the right way to do it[tm] is to find someone willing to become llvm |
| 19 |
upstream contributor/maintainer with a standing to get our patches in. |
| 20 |
I've tried something similar on a much lower level on several occasions |
| 21 |
and can say that it's a major undertaking that will gobble that someone |
| 22 |
up. So I'm not volunteering. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> - The libcxx{abi,-headers} situation needs love too, since we have |
| 25 |
> different ebuilds for Prefix |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I haven't forgotten about the "switch to cmake"-part of Bug #538364 but seem |
| 28 |
to have trouble motivating myself to touch it since the current scheme |
| 29 |
works reasonably well. :-/ |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Regards, |
| 32 |
Michael |
Archives