Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
Hello,

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 using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't
much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1.
See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for
more information on this.

Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name.

I have been publishing this change on top of the Debian/Ubuntu packages
for a couple of months now (basically since trunk became 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


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
On 17 Mar 2018, at 14:48, Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> 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 using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't
> much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1.
> See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for
> more information on this.
>
> Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name.
In light of the new versioning scheme, this looks very reasonable to me.


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

signature.asc (230 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
Hi Sylvestre,

Any hope for libc++ on apt.llvm.org (hoping not being too annoying)?

Best regards

Franz


Am 17.03.2018 um 14:48 schrieb Sylvestre Ledru via cfe-dev:

> Hello,
>
> 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 using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't
> much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1.
> See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for
> more information on this.
>
> Proposition: Remove the .0 everywhere in lib name.
>
> I have been publishing this change on top of the Debian/Ubuntu packages
> for a couple of months now (basically since trunk became 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
In reply to this post by Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
Hello,

On 17/03/2018 15:22, Dimitry Andric wrote:

> On 17 Mar 2018, at 14:48, Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> 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 using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't
>> much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1.
>> See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for
>> more information on 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


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [llvm-dev] Proposition: 7.0 => 7 in library names

Manuel Klimek via cfe-dev
On 22/03/2018 11:46, Sylvestre Ledru wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 17/03/2018 15:22, Dimitry Andric wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2018, at 14:48, Sylvestre Ledru via llvm-dev <[hidden email]> 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 using the minor version (the Y in X.Y.Z), there isn't
>>> much point in calling our tools foo-7.0 as we won't create a 7.1.
>>> See http://blog.llvm.org/2016/12/llvms-new-versioning-scheme.html for
>>> more information on 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
To close the loop, both patches just landed: r328769 & r328768.

Please report bugs in case of regressions and cc me.

Thanks,
Sylvestre


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment