From: Martin C. <cos...@wa...> - 2011-10-21 19:03:07
|
On 21/10/11 16:04 , Jack Howarth wrote: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 10:06:24AM +0200, Martin Costabel wrote: >> On 21/10/11 01:05, Jack Howarth wrote: >> [] >>> should upgrade to this version (or revert to Xcode 3.2.6). This would allow us to >>> focus on supporting clang in the Xcode 4.x releases and encourage unification of >>> any clang specific changes to info files between the 10.4 and 10.6 trees. It also >>> will likely accelerate the elimination of the unstable tree in 10.4 as any clang >>> specific changes are backported into 10.4. >> >> The most common "clang specific changes to info files" are currently >> SetCC: llvm-gcc-4.2 >> SetCXX: llvm-g++ >> because many packages won't compile with clang. >> This is not backportable. > Martin, > Re-reading your response again, I assume you meant that the info files will never > been entirely unified. This is true however that shouldn't stand in our way of attempting > to make fink usable for SL users who have Xcode 4.2 installed. We really only have two > choices there... > > 1) Leave fink as is and manually check if each info file is miscompiled by llvm-gcc. > This is a lot of work for a smallish testing and developer group to deal with. It also > requires far more info file changes to switch these problem packages to clang or gcc-4.2. > 2) Use my approach of enabling the path-prefix-clang on SL when Xcode 4.2 is detected via > the system compiler change. This gives us a well tested package set which already has been > checked against clang3.0svn. What I mean is that a package that does not compile under clang needs to include the above fix for xcode-4.2 if your automatic switch to clang is implemented. But then it will probably no longer work on 10.5 and on 10.6 with xcode-3.2. You would need one info file for xcode-4.2 and another one for xcode<=3.2. I don't see how this is possible inside the 10.4 tree. -- Martin |