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

Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:23:05PM +0100, Sven wrote:
> No, he wants to use bytecode, for whatever reason ...
look a few line above:
  "if a user have an arch on which native code compilation is not"

> > Think about the unison package, on architectures that support native
> > code it will be compiled as native code, on others as bytecode.
> And if i want to use the bytecode version on i386, i have to rebuild it
> myself, is that not so ?
> You are removing choice from the user by taking this decision out of his hand.

yes, because I'm assuming that there is no need to use unison as
bytecode where I can use it in native code flavour.
If we find a valid reason to do so (like the slow start possible problem
you reported) I have no problem in split all packages.
Anyway probably is better to split only package that really need this,
treating them as an exception to the default behaviour.

> It can wait for after woody though.
> BTW, if you don't do it, you loose the main interrest of ocaml-base.

not really, I think that you can go for it and build also an ocaml-base
package, is a user find ocaml programs that are not part of debian he
may want to install only the ocaml-base package instead of ocaml
IMO, is a good idea to build the ocaml-base package even if the other
package will not be splitted ...

> No, arch: all is not the same as arch: any.
> arch: all is a package which can run on all arches, whereas arch: any is a
> package that can be built on all arches.
> See the difference.

ok, I don't know this difference.
Does this mean that a bytecode package will be compiled only one time
rather than one for each arch?
BTW, do you know where this difference is explainge, I've looked in the
policy but the explaination I found is a bit confusing for me...

> Imagine a apt frontend coded in ocaml bytecode and using lablgtk as interface
> :)))

world domination ;)

The "arch: all" point is really relevant, when I will understand the
whole implications probably I fully agree with you and go splitting all
ocaml packages.

> > > But then, we can make this policy and apply it for woody+1. The
> > > important part
> Yes, let's wait for after woody for this, unless something important
> happens before the freeze, and the freeze is not delayed ad eternam.

Sure, BTW we can also wait the end of my exams ;) (that ends in


Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
                 - Information wants to be Open -

Attachment: pgpa_9rFetoco.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: