Re: packages which can be arch: all and arch: any ...
On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> >
> > 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)
>
> Well, it is not so much about the ocaml package, which is already
> suitably splitted (the bytecode interpreter is in ocaml-base), but about
> packages built with ocaml.
>
> > 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.
>
> Ok, but then the user will have to specify which version they want
> installed, and this is what i wanted to solve. That is, i want for the
> user not to have to worry about the native/bytecode packages, and have
> the best available installed when he does apt-get install foo.
Don't provide foo-runtime, but make foo depend on foo-native |
foo-bytecode?
mono works in a similar way, it depends on mono-jit | mono-interpreter.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer
XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
Reply to: