Linux 6.3-rc3

[Kalle Valo]

Nathan Chancellor <nathan at kernel.org> writes:

>> This is nitpicking but it would be nice if the tarball contents wouldn't
>> conflict with each other. Now both llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz and
>> llvm-16.0.0-x86_64.tar extract to the same directory llvm-16.0.0 with
>> same binary names. It would be much better if they would extract to
>> llvm-16.0.0-aarch64 and llvm-16.0.0-x86_64, respectively.
>> 
>> For example, Arnd's crosstool packages don't conflict with each other:
>> 
>> https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/tools/crosstool/
>
> I could certainly do that but what is the use case for extracting both?
> You cannot run the aarch64 version on an x86_64 host and vice versa, so
> why bother extracting them?

Ah, I didn't realise that. I assumed llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz was a
cross compiler. I'm sure you documented that in the page but hey who
reads the documentation ;)

> I had figured the architecture would be irrelevant once installed on
> the host, so I opted only to include it in the tarball name. Perhaps I
> should make it clearer that these are the host architectures, not the
> target architectures (because clang is multi-targeted, unlike GCC)?

Makes sense now. But I still think it's good style that a tarball named
llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.tar.gz extracts to llvm-16.0.0-aarch64.

>> And maybe request a similar llvm directory under pub/tools to make it
>> more official? :)
>
> Yes, I was talking that over with Nick recently, as having it under a
> group on kernel.org would make taking over maintainership easier should
> something happen to me :)

Yeah, sharing the load is always good.

-- 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/

https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches