Description of problem: I am building a package and want to link against the system LLVM libraries, but this package requires the AVR target for LLVM. This is enabled for other versions of the build, notably in Fedora. However, I am having a hard time finding the repo that the EPEL-9 version of LLVM is built with. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): This is for the LLVM package in EPEL-9 that is providing the LLVM-15 libraries. Notes: This is similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1718492
> However, I am having a hard time finding the repo that the EPEL-9 version of LLVM is built with. It is a package from RHEL 9 itself, not EPEL, so you would need to make this a Red Hat product request. The llvm13 compat package *is* in EPEL-9, so you could ask for AVR there instead, if that version suffices.
Ah yes, my mistake. Unfortunately, I require LLVM >= 15 so I can't use the LLVM 13 package. I have updated the current issue to reference RHEL 9 -> CentOS Stream. Is this okay, or should I close and create a new issue?
@rolfepower4 That's fine.
Awesome, let me know if any other information is needed!
AVR is a hobby target -- it's not particularly stable and maintenance happens rather sporadically. I don't think it would be a good idea to include it in RHEL. What is this target needed for?
This is for microcontroller work. I understand the hesitance to include, however. I was not aware of it's experimental status as previous compilations were done on debian-based systems where the target is enabled (https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=899202).
Maybe toolbx (https://containertoolbx.org/) would suit you? Then you can easily "contain" your microcontroller work with Fedora tools on your RHEL host.
Yeah, that is definitely something to look at. I have not used toolbox in the past but if that's the recommended route to go, then I'll have to investigate.
(In reply to Rolfe Power from comment #9) > Yeah, that is definitely something to look at. I have not used toolbox in > the past but if that's the recommended route to go, then I'll have to > investigate. Ok, closing this bug then.