[MacPorts] #47089: llvm-* all Poor user experience

[MacPorts]

#47089: llvm-* all Poor user experience
--------------------------+--------------------------------
  Reporter:  s@…          |      Owner:  macports-tickets@…
      Type:  enhancement  |     Status:  closed
  Priority:  Normal       |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports        |    Version:  2.3.3
Resolution:  invalid      |   Keywords:
      Port:               |
--------------------------+--------------------------------

Comment (by s@…):

 Replying to [comment:3 jeremyhu@…]:
 > And it is called "3.7svn" by upstream.  The versioning is appropriate.
 The same thing is done in a multitude of other ports, including gcc5.

 I don't believe that's true http://llvm.org/releases/ (3.7 only appears in
 the skeleton release notes), but this isn't a very important point and if
 it's common practice in MacPorts, then so be it.

 > That is not really a good analogy.

 It's not completely analogous, but it demonstrates that by having
 different ports (or maybe subports), there's never a version mismatch
 whereas by using variants, there can be.

 > Actually, it will:
 > {{{
 >
 > $ port info cctools
 > cctools @862_1 (devel)
 > Variants:             llvm33, llvm34, [+]llvm35, llvm36, llvm37,
 (+)universal
 >
 > Description:          A set of essential tools to support development on
 Mac OS
 >                       X and Darwin. Conceptually similar similar to
 binutils on
 >                       other platforms.
 > Homepage:             http://opensource.apple.com/source/cctools/
 >
 > Build Dependencies:   libunwind-headers
 > Library Dependencies: llvm-3.5
 > Platforms:            darwin
 > License:              APSL-2 GPL-2+
 > Maintainers:          jeremyhu at macports.org, openmaintainer
 > }}}

 That's cctools, not clang. Unless the user is expected to examine all
 variants of dependencies recursively by hand, port info doesn't tell you
 what you need to know.

 > Again, that's not a problem with the llvm port.  Your issue there is
 with base.
 >
 > Well, there is nothing actionable.  This isn't the proper forum.  You
 have concerns with MacPorts in general, and you are using the llvm port as
 an example.  There is nothing specific to the llvm ports that are a
 problem here.  If you want to see improvements, I suggest you start a
 discussion on the mailing list as that is a more appropriate forum for
 discussing things at that level.

 Fair enough. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/47089#comment:5>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X