| 1 |
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12/03/2022 10:43, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/767700 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Is that the one? It mentions the target but I don't quite understand |
| 6 |
>> the why. The biggest thing, will this break something if I let it do |
| 7 |
>> it? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> No. Unlike GCC, LLVM/Clang is always a cross-compiler. This just |
| 10 |
> enables some extra targets. It won't actually affect anything other |
| 11 |
> than perhaps the binaries becoming a bit larger. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm doing this in a chroot so it is recoverable if it was a problem but |
| 18 |
now I know it's OK to do on my main install. I still find it odd but if |
| 19 |
it is needed and there is a reason for it, sounds good to me. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
If this were a bad thing tho, this is why it is always good to look at |
| 22 |
the output before doing a update. If this was a serious package that |
| 23 |
would cause widespread breakage, one would want to catch this. I've |
| 24 |
sort of read about llvm and clang and I seem to recall things like |
| 25 |
Firefox needing them or something. Even if it did break things, I don't |
| 26 |
think it would cause breakage to the point of rendering a system |
| 27 |
unbootable or anything. Still, I check the output of updates for this |
| 28 |
reason. If nothing else, I could have caught the tree in the middle of |
| 29 |
a change and missed some important bits. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Thanks to all for the info. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Dale |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
:-) :-) |
Archives