[LLVMdev] Slight troubles following "Getting Started" instructions

[Tanya M. Lattner]

> The page is missing a link to the download section. Returning to the
> main page at http://llvm.org/ , I found the Site Map, checked it - and
> didn't see the download link (well, it's sitting right below, but
> there's so much text on that page that I simply overlooked it).

You are right that its missing from the getting started guide. I'll add 
it.

> The download page was the next challenge.It gave me source code at the
> beginning, source code at the end, and lots of keywords about Mingw32,
> MacOS, Red Hat, and another bunch of source code.
> Only now that I'm writing up my experience I see there's an inner
> structure to the list: LLVM, then LLVM-GCC 4.2, then LLVM-GCC 4.0. LLVM
> starts with sources, LLVM-GCC (inconsistently) starts with binaries and
> gives sources later.
> Suggestion 1: Strukture the download list, like so:
> * LLVM
>  * LLVM source code (5.4M)
>  * LLVM Test Suite (53M)
>  * LLVM Binaries for Minw32/x86 (14M)
> * LLVM-GCC 4.2 Front End
>  * Binaries for MacOS X/x86 (50M)
>  * Binaries for Red Hat Enterprise Linux4/x86 (42M)
>  ...
>  * Source Code (49M)
> * LLVM-GCC 4.0 Front End
>  * ...

First, from 2.0 and beyond the list has been pretty much llvm, llvm-test, 
llvm binaries (if any), llvm-gcc binaries, and then llvm-gcc source. The 
reason it is in that order is that we are trying to encourage people to 
download the llvm-gcc binaries versus compiling it themselves.

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.

> 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.

> Suggestion 2: make the layout wider so the links don't wrap.

This will be fixed with the website overhaul.

> 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....

I appreciate the feedback.

-Tanya