Very well, I'll make a prototype PKGBUILD that has sections for each install
and then post it here, good luck :)
I do think it odd though that Clang would be larger than GCC, I guess we'll
have to see.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Tobias Kieslich
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009, Ranguvar wrote:
It appears that Clang is available as an actual release this time around, so no need for SVN :) See this: http://llvm.org/releases/download.html#2.6 Oh huebsch! ... or sweet in English ...
As for the splitting of the packages, it will be either difficult or impossible to separate LLVM and Clang, is the problem. Plus, I anticipate Clang being _far_ smaller than the GCC frontend -- it shouldn't be much trouble to include it in the LLVM package. I think you are wrong on both assumptions, just the clang_cc binary is 16 MB the combined libClang* come to 24MB so it is smaller than gcc I think but still significant. I do think, however, that there can be seperate packages, I have a pretty good idea which files are to put where.
You are right that they will have to be build at the same time but we can split packages now from the same PKGBUILD file. Not that I would have done it yet but the pacman folks are working on it and AFAIK it's complete.
The ugly part so far is, I haven't found a way to put clang_cc somewhere else than /usr/libexec which would be deprecated in Archlinux. If you move it around the static analyer barfs ...
The problem is that Clang must be built using the source from LLVM, and seems to need to be compiled with LLVM. That would suggest that to offer Clang separately from LLVM, the two would have to be manually ripped apart -- I can build LLVM, and I can build LLVM+Clang, but not just Clang. That may be subject to change, of course, I may have missed something.
So, the route I like would be to put LLVM+Clang in the llvm package, and offer the GCC frontend as a separate optdep.
-T