[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I'm packaging the dotfile program



spotter@itd.nrl.navy.mil (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
> machine-independant

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).


MfG Kai


--
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


Reply to: