IRC Logs for #crux-devel Saturday, 2014-05-17

frinnstyah thats a good idea00:01
frinnstberlios seems down. i bet there are slim patches ready00:01
frinnstoh well, enough for today00:01
*** john3213 has joined #crux-devel01:08
*** john3213 has left #crux-devel ()01:13
Romsterwhy did we have to downgrade xorg-fontsproto? was it not compatible?02:18
*** horrorStruck has joined #crux-devel08:28
jueteK_: wouldn't be a pure clang port much smarter than the conflicting llvm-clang?09:28
jueRomster: yes09:29
jueRomster: build of libxfonts fails on configure stage, see also here ->
*** jue has quit IRC09:33
*** jue has joined #crux-devel09:42
Romsterread that but why would they break it on 2.1.3 and not on 2.2.009:54
Romsteror 2.3.009:55
Romsterstupid what they done. with breaking it from 2.1.2 to 2.1.309:55
teK_jue:  as I already stated, I did not find a way to build clang without building llvm10:10
teK_I think it's rather stupid to compile llvm and clang and then throw away llvm10:11
juewell, I don't like conflicting ports if we can avoid it10:15
jueteK_: do you really care about compile-time for a port like that?10:16
Romsteri think they are working on a fix to build clang independently of llvm.10:17
jueteK_: I mean your argument is: "if I have compiled something I will install it", sorry but I cannot follow that10:18
teK_llvm takes about 6 minutes, clang 15 minutes10:42
teK_in the end I dont care. I thought that to be more user-friendly...10:42
teK_Romster: that would be a great thing to have10:43
nrxtxhi :)10:52
Romsterlo nrxtx11:07
nrxtxhi Romster hows your version/file indexer going?11:08
jueteK_: IMO the single clang-port is more user-friendly because a) no conflicts, just install clang additionally if you need it and b) no need for a ports-alias11:17
jueteK_: but in the end, as you, I don't care much ;)11:17
teK_jue's opinion is known. Romster, jaeger, frinnst what's your opinion on that matter?11:18
teK_we only need to decide until clang's build process is fixed, anyway11:19
teK_makes the issue even less pressing to me ;)11:19
nrxtxafter being away for a month, hows the current status of crux, anything to test/is there something which needs support?11:21
frinnst<Romster> i think they are working on a fix to build clang independently of llvm.11:24
frinnstso just discarding llvm when building clang sounds like a more future-proof plan11:24
teK_ok. opinion noted11:27
teK_gotta do some cooking :]11:27
frinnstbut yeah, there's no real "right" solution. they both suck :)11:31
teK_fuck upstream =)12:08
*** pitillo has quit IRC12:13
*** pitillo has joined #crux-devel12:23
frinnstis there  any ports that *require* clang? or is it just for people that relly want to use it?12:45
jaegerjue: I'm with jue on it but keep in mind that I also don't use it for anything myself, so I defer to people who do13:13
jaegerfrinnst: none that I know of right now, though some (llvm) will use it if it's available13:13
frinnstyeah same here, i dont use clang so i dont really have any strong opinions on the subject. but *if* clang will build without building llvm in the near future (during 3.1 lifecycle) i think just rm -rf $llvm-source is the best alternative13:18
juefrinnst: the right solution is to avoid conflicting ports, if that's possible we should try to follow that "rule" IMO13:30
frinnstindeed. i guess my point got a cross a bit mangled :)13:32
frinnstbut we have a similar thing with qemu/qemu-all too13:33
jueyeah, but in that case I don't care much because a) it's not on our ISO b) it's not a requirement for most of our users13:35
juelike llvm that's nowadays is needed to build X13:36
frinnstgood point13:56
*** irclogger_ has joined #crux-devel14:42
*** Guest93265 has joined #crux-devel14:43
frinnstteK_: dont worry about slim. i forgot i had --as-needed as a ld-flag16:19
frinnstworks without it16:19
frinnststill, i rebuilt everything yesterday and slim was the only port that failed16:20
teK_sounds great17:17
*** novak has quit IRC20:25
*** novak_ has joined #crux-devel20:25

Generated by 2.11.0 by Marius Gedminas - find it at!