> Yes. I'm not sure what is required then. In the nocheck case, you only > really need the headers? Yup, just need the ABI for the functions imported from the nickle binary, and that's what the headers provide. It sounds like having a nickle-dev package might be nice -- that would also avoid installing the headers when all you need it to use it. > > The default-jdk:native part is a bit odd. Would it make sense to split > > the rather large altos binary package into some smaller parts and > > possibly an Arch:all package? Somehow I missed the important bit here -- we *do* need to split the altos package into bits, and placing the java compiler output in an 'Architecture: all' package seems like the correct solution here. I'll poke the altos maintainer and see if we can't make this happen at some point. The current kludge of using :native reflects the fact that the altos 'Architecture: any' package is providing a bunch of files which should be provided by an 'Architecture: all' package; building them for each architecture with the :native JDK/JRE 'works', but only because we know they don't depend upon the architecture. I can't just use the JRE because the javac compiler is provided by the JDK, and those have to have matching architectures. -- -keith
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature