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

11 comments

Comment from: Michael Biebl [Visitor]
Michael Biebl

Now 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: [Member]
Sly

I 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]
Anonym

Clang 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]
Ralf

At 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 Gal

Can 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.

Thx

2012-02-29 @ 13:57
Comment from: [Member]
Sly
2012-02-29 @ 14:00
Comment from: Jonas Smedegaard [Visitor]
Jonas Smedegaard

Would 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: [Member]
Sly

@Jonas: Right, I will do it!

2012-02-29 @ 14:16
Comment from: Kartik [Visitor]
Kartik

dd-list will be cool addition :)

2012-02-29 @ 15:46
Comment from: Marc Driftmeyer [Visitor]
Marc Driftmeyer

All 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]
Witek

Can 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


Form is loading...