« java-package: Replacement of sun-java6Major changes in the Debian HDF5 packages »


Comment from: Michael Biebl [Visitor]
Michael BieblNow that Apple is gaining influence in the development of LLVM, don't you see a risk that it suffers the same fate as cups? See the recent developments of cups 1.6 wrt Linux.
2012-02-29 @ 02:53
Comment from: Sylvestre LEDRU [Member] Email
Sylvestre LEDRUI have been following the llvm-commits mailing list for a while and Apple people are not doing half of the commits.

There are Google, academic, etc contributing on a daily bases...
For example, I didn't have issues to see my patches applied quickly (even the one for HURD).
2012-02-29 @ 08:46
Comment from: Anonym [Visitor]
AnonymClang is real threat to all free world cause of apple have its hands on it.
I hope clang not become a default compiler in linux distros. Do you know why BSD want to propose clang? They are hate GNU GPL license, thats it. There is no other real reason why do they refused to use gcc in their system. They can't understand, that GPL is good for both developers and users, while BSD good only for companies.
2012-02-29 @ 12:14
Comment from: Ralf [Visitor]
RalfAt least LLVM is developed by people from different companies, while gcc is at least 90%, probably more, developed by a single company: Google.
2012-02-29 @ 13:42
Comment from: Sylvain Le Gal [Visitor]
Sylvain Le GalCan you give a list of all packages with their errors.

I am trying to find (OCaml) packages with error and it will be useful to have all the problematic packages on the same pages, whatever their error is.

2012-02-29 @ 13:57
Comment from: Sylvestre LEDRU [Member] Email
Sylvestre LEDRUSylvain:

with clang 2.9
2012-02-29 @ 14:00
Comment from: Jonas Smedegaard [Visitor]
Jonas SmedegaardWould be nice with per-package-maintainer web pages.

Also, per-package web pages and (poking Paul Wise to add) links from packages.qa.debian.org summary pages would be awesome.
2012-02-29 @ 14:13
Comment from: Sylvestre LEDRU [Member] Email
Sylvestre LEDRU@Jonas: Right, I will do it!
2012-02-29 @ 14:16
Comment from: Kartik [Visitor]
Kartikdd-list will be cool addition :)
2012-02-29 @ 15:46
Comment from: Marc Driftmeyer [Visitor]
Marc DriftmeyerAll this whining about LLVM/Clang. What a joke. The quality of architecture alone, nevermind the contributions by hundreds of architect level quality developers of compiler expertise is producing a far superior product to GCC.

You get all of this for free.

You get CUPS for free. Nothing is stopping any Distribution of Linux to pair up the quality of CUPS with that of Apple.
2012-02-29 @ 16:32
Comment from: Witek [Visitor]
WitekCan you provide search by package name or source package name on clang.debian.net? It will make easier to check if packages I care is affected. Also package size comparission (before and after compressing into .deb, and default ones from Debian) of this packages which successed would be usefull.

Another question: what architecture you was using? amd64? How about i386? It should be equally easy (in terms of access to building virtual machines), and when considering metrics like package (binary) sizes changes beetween clang and gcc, it can give better insight into any changes.
2012-03-12 @ 00:54