Re: mesa-dri uses llvm60

On 12/01/2019 12:06, Robert Huff wrote:
> 
> Andreas Nilsson writes:
> 
>>  On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 5:25 PM Daniel Eischen wrote:
>   
>>   >      Just thinking out loud, can the missing llvm bits be a port,
>>   >      such that building the missing pieces use what's already
>>   >      in base?
>>  
>>  It probably could, at least technically. But it would probably not
>>  be a good idea, having some bits in / and some bits in
>>  /usr/local. Also, if a newer mesa-dri would depend on a newer llvm
>>  than whats in base, that would prohibit any update to mesa-dri.
> 
> 	Could it be an _optional_ part of base, perhaps controlled by
> "WITH_LLVM_EXTRAS=yes" in src.conf?
> 
No on all counts. The LLVM ports are absolutely needed.

https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhyDoIHaveToBuildLLVMWhenIAlreadyHaveClangInstalled
(wiki page courtesy of brooks@)

-- 
Charlie Li
Can't think of a witty .sigline today…

(This email address is for mailing list use only; replace local-part
with vishwin for off-list communication)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=rnzj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----