Re: Updated maint-guide contents, question on style -- ELF/compiled language
Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Justin B Rye wrote:
>>> + - The geneated binary package is architecture dependent one
>> ^r is an
>>> + usually from compiler languages.
>> in a compiled language.
>>> + * <literal>Architecture: all</literal>
>>> + - The generated binary package is architecture independent one
>> is an
>>> + usually generated from interpreter languages or
Oops, that should be "interpreted languages".
>>> + consisting of text or graphic data.
>>> + We leave line 10 as is since this is written in the C language.
>> in C.
>>> + dpkg-gencontrol(1) will fill in the appropriate CPU architecture
>>> + value for any machine this source package gets compiled on.
> After commiting and reading this, I found this to be awkward.
> There is no "compiled language". I know "compiled binary code" from
> "compiler languages" such as C. Then I realize, we use ELF these days
> and it is not exactly machine code (aout) itself. Linker makes ELF
> binary into machine code. Thus I updated related section with "ELF".
> Please see all the location with "ELF" or "compile" around here.
References to ELF are a bit more technical than there's any need for.
I assure you there really are "compiled" and "interpreted" languages,
and those are the terms normally used to refer to them - see:
A "compiler language" would be a language used for or by a compiler
(not necessarily the same as the language it's compiling), and
likewise for an "interpreter language".
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package