[cfe-dev] clang packaging question

Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silvanus at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 08:39:52 PDT 2009

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote:

> Depends upon your needs and desires.  If you want clang to be able to be
> faster moving and not tied directly to llvm, uncoupled is a nice way to
> develop.  If you want them fully coupled, just drop clang into llvm and
> build both together.  Around here, we like them decoupled (for now).  If you
> don't need them decoupled, together results in faster build times, if you
> also ship llvm bits for some reason.

We ship the LLVM bits too, but after build, the installed files are
split off into separate subpackages.

>> 3. Does the Clang team have any preference w.r.t. package naming? e.g.
>>  -- llvm-clang or just clang
>>  -- llvm-clang-analyzer, clang-analyzer, or llvm-checker
> just clang I think is best.  The middle one, though Ted might have a better
> idea.

So clang and clang-analyzer, then. Thanks!

Michel Alexandre Salim

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list