From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 078EC138334 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 20:22:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 76B56E0BF4; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 20:22:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29FB9E0B73 for ; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 20:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from enyo.local (dynamic-adsl-84-220-164-107.clienti.tiscali.it [84.220.164.107]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: lu_zero) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A642335C3D; Fri, 14 Dec 2018 20:22:00 +0000 (UTC) Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to handle ROC forks of llvm and clang To: Craig Andrews , llvm@gentoo.org, gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: gienah@gentoo.org, gentoo@holzke.net References: <5d774dabaee69376e4780c076fb271a6@gentoo.org> From: Luca Barbato Message-ID: <25afbdcd-1fcd-f21a-b128-201ad198eb6d@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 21:21:57 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:64.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/64.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5d774dabaee69376e4780c076fb271a6@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 32f58cf4-89be-41ee-bf38-94c801aa1032 X-Archives-Hash: 2f0f10c29736beaa6bed9c4863be0cc1 On 14/12/2018 21:00, Craig Andrews wrote: > Since ROC will eventually upstream all of it's work, (2) is ideal - but > I have no idea what the timeline on that upstreaming effort may be, and > I can't find anything that gives a hint. I'd rather go with 1 and update the deps once llvm upstream gets the right support. lu