Re: I'm packaging the dotfile program
email@example.com (Shaya Potter) wrote on 15.12.96 in <Pine.SUN.3.91.961215233300.20974B-100000@itd>:
> On Sun, 15 Dec 1996, David Engel wrote:
> > Shaya Potter writes:
> > > I have been fooling around with packaging the dotfile program (recently
> > > announced on c.o.l.a) It seems pretty nice, however I have a few
> > > questions about what I have seen when packaging it.
> > >
> > > 1. It is basically a tcl/tk program, so I would think it could go in
> > > all the binary formats, except for the fact that it bytecompiles the tcl
> > > scripts. Can I modify the Makefile so it won't do this or does this
> > > mean nothing and can still be put in 'all' or is this neccessary.
> > Are the byte-compiled versions architecture independent? If so, the
> > package can still go in 'all'. Otherwise, how much does not having
> > the byte-compiled versions affect performance? The last time I tried
> > dotfile, the startup time was faitly long.
> That was basically my question. Thanks for rewording it in a way I
> actually understand now? :-). So if anyone can answer this I would be
> appreciative. I am wondering if byte compiled means that it's machine
> dependant or is it kind of like java, which is semi-compiled and is
There is no general answer that works for all byte-compilers or p-code-
interpreters (which basically amounts to the same thing). Some of them are
architecture dependant, others aren't.
All such non-machine-code data can, but need not, depend on
1. Word size (32 bit for most, 64 bit for Alpha)
2. Byte sex (Intel vs. m68k).
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org . Trouble? e-mail to Bruce@Pixar.com