Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:20:41PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:23:05PM +0100, Sven wrote:
> > 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?
Yes, that is the main benefit ...
> 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...
huh ? i think it is written in the debian developper reference stuff.
Anyway, all is for docs and other arch indep stuff, like shell scripts and
> > 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.
And the m68k guys will be very very happy with this.
> > > > 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
Good luck to you ...