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

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 
>>                                                     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

Reply to: