Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] New categories for LLVM

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Given that the number of LLVM packages is growing, and probably will
> grow again (I'm introducing "offload" right now, expect at least MLIR
> soon, there are open requests for flang, polly...), I'd like to propose
> creating dedicated categories for these packages and moving them there.
>
> If not anything else, this will help consistently applying flags
> and keywords to these packages (`/etc/portage/package.*` accept
> wildcards).

I quite like the idea of having a category to ease keywording and testing.

>
> My initial idea would be to use two categories: one for the toolchain
> packages, another for runtimes, e.g.:
>
> llvm-core/
>   clang
>   clang-common
>   clang-runtime
>   clang-toolchain-symlinks
>   lld
>   lld-toolchain-symlinks
>   lldb
>   llvm
>   llvm-common
>   llvm-toolchain-symlinks
>   llvmgold
>
> llvm-runtimes/
>   compiler-rt
>   compiler-rt-sanitizers
>   libclc
>   libcxx
>   libcxxabi
>   libomp (-> openmp?)
>   llvm-offload (-> offload)
>   llvm-unwind (-> unwind?)
>

I'm not sure if I'm sold on *two*. What happens for stuff like mlir
where it's not a runtime but it's arguably more of one than core?

It just doesn't feel like the division works great. Or maybe it's just
because I feel like llvm-core will keep growing and llvm-runtimes won't.

> clang-python, lit and llvm-ocaml would remain in their language
> categories.
>
> WDYT?

I'm going to start another reply for a subthread.

thanks,
sam