Re: packages which can be arch: all and arch: any ...
Hi,
Sven LUTHER:
> Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code
> package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not
> supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or
> something such ?
>
I'd split the packages in three:
- ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff)
- ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter)
- ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code)
The latter two provide a common symbol "ocaml-runtime", both require ocaml;
ocaml requires "ocaml-runtime"; either -native can conflict with -bytecode
and vice versa, or you select which you want via the alternatives
mechanism.
For archs which don't have a native compiler, there's simply no choice.
> BTW, is there a more appropriated list for this kind of question ?
>
Not that I know of.
> BTW2, if i go with virtual packages, i will most probably run with
> problems on versioned dependencies
You don't need them here. -bytecode and -native can even be versioned
independently; if a program has a problem with an old -native it can
register a conflict with lower versions of it.
--
Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
Reply to: