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

Re: Architecture independent binaries and building from source

On Tue August 10, 2004 11h14, Stephen Gran wrote:
> I don't particularly know java, but if it's a pre-byte-compiled binary
> that is really arch-independant, then I don't really see the need to
> force the rebuild of the binary at debian/rules build time.  I also
> don't see the need to rebuild manpages that are originally included as
> sgml/xml/whatever at build-time either, or turn one image format into
> another, or any of these kind of things, but maybe that's just me.
> Doing the build once ahead of time for arch-independant stuff seems
> like a huge gain in overhead.  
> > i can certainly name a good number of cases where this does seem to
> > be a precedent, like with scheme and python modules.
> That doesn't mean they're all sensible.  ISTR a debate about python, at
> least, and the compiling of modules at install time.  Again, I am not
> fluent in java (or particularly python), so I may be wrong on technical
> issues, and am perfectly willing to be corrected.  The principle, I
> think, is sound though.  If there is a technical reason why upstream's
> pre-compiled binary is no good for Debian (different toolchain, problems
> introduced by missing symbols or something (does java even have symbols
> in the C way?)), then I say rebuild it at build time.  If not, then it
> seems that this is making a mountain out of a molehill.
> My 2p.

This is my point exactly. Upstream's binaries are technically perfect.
There is no technical advantage to rebuilding them. That being the
case, I see no need to rebuild them.

The architecture independent binary is a derivative form of the source
code. Stephen pointed out many excellent cases where we do not
regenerate derivative forms from their preferred form of modification
when upstream's derivative form is technically sufficient.

My 0.02$ CDN. We better look up the exchange rates so that we can
figure out whose ideas are worth more.  ;)


Reply to: