[LLVMdev] Slight troubles following "Getting Started" instructions

[Joachim Durchholz]

Hi,

Am Dienstag, den 26.02.2008, 14:01 -0800 schrieb Tanya M. Lattner:
> I can move the llvm-gcc4.2 source code up in the list if people think this 
> is better... but the binaries will still be first and should be.

Just make it consistent so people who don't know their way around yet
can quickly find what they're looking for.

I agree that binaries should be first if they should be encouraged.

I plan to run the test suite, just to establish a known baseline (this
is an amd64 machine, and things tend to be a bit less well-polished than
on stock x86 installations).
Does it make sense to
* first run the test suite with the binaries,
* compile llvm-gcc from sources,
* run the test suite again with the recompiled binaries?

> > Oh, and possibly a note why one would want LLVM, LLVM-GCC 4.2, and
> > LLVM-GCC 4.0, respectively. People usually know what OS they use and
> > whether they want binaries or sources, but those who're new to LLVM
> > won't know whether they will need LLVM or LLVM-GCC (and if they need
> > LLVM-GCC, they can't decide whether they need 4.2 or 4.0).
> 
> True. 2.3 will solve this problem since we will drop llvm-gcc-4.0. 
> Otherwise, we expect people to read the getting started guide to 
> understand what parts of llvm they need and what they are. The download 
> page should not be cluttered with this information.

That's a bit of a catch-22 situation for me. I'm still in the "Getting
Started" phase, so by definition, I haven't read everything yet, much
less understood what I need.
I agree that cluttering the download page with such information isn't
optimal.

> > Oh, and please don't label the Linux binaries "Red Hat Linux". Anything
> > with a primary label of "Red Hat" gets filtered out for me on an almost
> > subconscious level since I'm running an Ubuntu box, so the primary
> > labels that I look for are "Linux" and "Ubuntu". "Red Hat Enterprise
> > Linux" is quite a moutful, and the trigger keyword is almost last on
> > that line (and wrapped, too).
> > I'd rephrase that as "Binaries for Linux (tested for Red Hat Enterprise
> > Linux)" or something. (Heck, I'm not even sure whether it will run on
> > any Linux other than RHEL. I have no idea what differences there might
> > be between RHEL and Ubuntu; I surely hope none that affect LLVM-GCC.)
> 
> The reason its labaled RHEL is because I'm not positive it will work on 
> another Linux distribution. I don't see why its different to have a label 
> versus having it in the name. Its just more words....

Just to help people who're under brainwave overload :-)
The key rule here is: important keywords first, less important ones to
the right. In the case of Linux binaries, it's "Linux", then RHEL. (I
agree it's silly.)

Thanks for the apprecation :-)

Regards,
Jo