Refactor clang::tarball recipe and update to clang version 3.3 #212

merged 3 commits into from Oct 7, 2013

2 participants

Travis CI member

@michaelklishin @joshk can you please review this?

Note: I give up trying to auto-construct the download URL, because LLVM "packaging conventions" are not stable at all, as illustrated here:

  • clang+llvm-3.3-amd64-Ubuntu-12.04.2.tar.gz
  • clang+llvm-3.2-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-12.04.tar.gz
  • clang+llvm-3.1-x86_64-linux-ubuntu-11.10.tar.bz2
  • clang+llvm-3.1-x86_64-linux-ubuntu_12.04.tar.gz
  • clang+llvm-3.0-x86_64-linux-Ubuntu-11_04.tar.bz2

I find therefore quite easier to just update the download link attribute when bumping version... (I added checksum validation, following style of other travis-made cookbooks)

Update to clang 3.3 is related to travis-ci/travis-ci#979

gildegoma added some commits Aug 22, 2013
@gildegoma gildegoma Refactor clang::tarball recipe
 * Renounce to dynamically construct download URL.
   The download link is now defined as a cookbook attribute, since packages do not follow stable naming conventions.
 * Use 'ark' resource to download and install clang tarball.
@gildegoma gildegoma [clang 3.1+] Don't symlink to removed 'llvm-ld'

> The llvm-ld tool has been removed. The clang driver provides a
> more reliable solution for turning a set of bitcode files into a
> binary. To merge bitcode files llvm-link can be used instead.

**KISS Note:**

This cookbook is not (yet) oriented to install "all possible" clang versions.
If wanting to do so, the list of binaries to symlink should be
dynamically constructed based on clang version, or extracted as cookbook
attribute to give more flexibility.
@gildegoma gildegoma Bump clang version to 3.3 d904e43

Feel free to drop support for 3.0 and 3.1.

@gildegoma gildegoma referenced this pull request in travis-ci/travis-ci Aug 28, 2013

Better C++ support #979

Travis CI member

Just to clarify, clang cookbook is at the moment "single (latest) version" oriented, and we'll thus "drop" support for all previous versions (3.2 included).

I'm waiting for travis-ci/travis-ci#979 to be clarified, before proposing any "multiple version" improvements.


Can we merge this? Providing 3.3 sounds like a good default.

Travis CI member

👍 to merge (and update the docs).

(Once merged, I'll start to work on multi gcc/clang)

@gildegoma gildegoma referenced this pull request in travis-ci/ Oct 6, 2013

Upgrades in next Linux VM update #370

@michaelklishin michaelklishin merged commit 3a61f7c into travis-ci:master Oct 7, 2013

1 check passed

Details default The Travis CI build passed

@gildegoma it may be a good idea to backport this upstream and updated it the same we now do for Neo4J :)

@gildegoma gildegoma deleted the gildegoma:clang-3.3 branch Oct 10, 2013
Travis CI member

Thanks for your trust, I'll try to reserve some time for that as soon as possible.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment