Hi! As many of us noticed, LLVM/Clang was stabilized to the 5.0 version. However, the only package complaining of that version is qt-creator-4.3.1 (which depends ONLY on LLVM/Clang 4.0). I don't know exactly if other packages have such dependencies. The 4.4.1 version of qt-creator can depend on any LLVM/Clang version from 4.0 onwards. So if is it possible, you may consider the stabilization of 4.4.1 version of qt-creator. Meanwhile, I had to unmask it. Thanks. Reproducible: Always
(In reply to jorgicio from comment #0) > As many of us noticed, LLVM/Clang was stabilized to the 5.0 version. > However, the only package complaining of that version is qt-creator-4.3.1 > (which depends ONLY on LLVM/Clang 4.0). I don't know exactly if other > packages have such dependencies. The 4.4.1 version of qt-creator can depend > on any LLVM/Clang version from 4.0 onwards. Not true. See bug 631194. > So if is it possible, you may consider the stabilization of 4.4.1 version of > qt-creator. Meanwhile, I had to unmask it. sys-devel/clang is slotted, you can have both 4.0.x and 5.0.x installed at the same time, so I don't see the problem. Moreover, I wasn't too happy with the 4.4.x release of qt-creator, as I noticed some instability and general slowness in my personal usage. But maybe that's just me. So the plan was to skip 4.4.1 and stabilize 4.5.x directly... unless you can tell me a good reason to stabilize 4.4.1...
(In reply to Davide Pesavento from comment #1) > (In reply to jorgicio from comment #0) > > As many of us noticed, LLVM/Clang was stabilized to the 5.0 version. > > However, the only package complaining of that version is qt-creator-4.3.1 > > (which depends ONLY on LLVM/Clang 4.0). I don't know exactly if other > > packages have such dependencies. The 4.4.1 version of qt-creator can depend > > on any LLVM/Clang version from 4.0 onwards. > > Not true. See bug 631194. > > > So if is it possible, you may consider the stabilization of 4.4.1 version of > > qt-creator. Meanwhile, I had to unmask it. > > sys-devel/clang is slotted, you can have both 4.0.x and 5.0.x installed at > the same time, so I don't see the problem. > > Moreover, I wasn't too happy with the 4.4.x release of qt-creator, as I > noticed some instability and general slowness in my personal usage. But > maybe that's just me. So the plan was to skip 4.4.1 and stabilize 4.5.x > directly... unless you can tell me a good reason to stabilize 4.4.1... Sincerely, slotting LLVM/Clang, although a good idea, not always fits with everyone in compilation times or HDD space available. Also, I found that the 5.0 stabilization of that package came too soon, and I'm doing my thesis on LLVM/Clang support, so... is there a way to make the compiler to choose between 4.0 and 5.0 version? And I found a bit annoying that only one package complaints of everything. Meanwhile, I went back to 4.0 and masking 5.0 due to some reasons, like HDD space and taking ages to build. Anyways, this is just a suggestion IMHO. (And tried qt-creator 4.4.1 and I found everything as normal as usual, maybe it's just me though)
The bug has been referenced in the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=393740a060f9b713a628c4367186325570e62cb1 commit 393740a060f9b713a628c4367186325570e62cb1 Author: Davide Pesavento <pesa@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2018-01-23 23:00:09 +0000 Commit: Davide Pesavento <pesa@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2018-01-23 23:06:24 +0000 dev-qt/qt-creator: stabilize 4.4.1 on amd64 Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/644948 Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.20, Repoman-2.3.6 dev-qt/qt-creator/qt-creator-4.4.1.ebuild | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)}
(In reply to Davide Pesavento from comment #1) > Moreover, I wasn't too happy with the 4.4.x release of qt-creator, as I > noticed some instability and general slowness in my personal usage. But > maybe that's just me. So the plan was to skip 4.4.1 and stabilize 4.5.x > directly... unless you can tell me a good reason to stabilize 4.4.1... On second thought, 4.5.1 isn't much better in that regard, so I've stabilized 4.4.1 and we will likely skip stabilization of 4.5.x instead.
(In reply to jorgicio from comment #2) > Sincerely, slotting LLVM/Clang, although a good idea, not always fits with > everyone in compilation times or HDD space available. This is not a valid argument. clang support is optional in qt-creator (and disabled by default). If you don't want to compile qt-creator, upstream provides binary packages for amd64, and they bundle a version of clang as well.
