Why is not llvm-config executable included?

[Dewayne Geraghty]

On 16/02/2020 9:27 am, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> One of the reason why llvm in base should not be used as llvm infrastructure
> is because llvm API and ABI is not stable across llvm releases, and exposing
> that would make compiler updates in stable impossible due to the stable
> branches guarantee of ABI stability.

I think you're saying - don't build ports in a base (without the llvm
port), rather use a separate build jail with llvm port.

We used to build all ports in base and ship them to clients.  Around
FreeBSD6 we started to build within a jailed environment, as we
supported i386 & amd64; something we still do.  Though I'm concerned
that perhaps we should migrate (our jails) back to using gcc where-ever
possible, in the hope of avoiding future ABI incompatibility?

In my experience replacing a base 'something' with the port of
'something' must be done carefully.  (our experience with
binutils and libressl, ultimately required removing all base "stuff" and
using workarounds like softlinks - a bit messy, but scriptable)

Would using gcc, in the build jail, provide better insurance against ABI
breakage?