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

Re: splitting ocaml-native-compilers

On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:42:40AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Judicaël Courant wrote:
> > 
> > I have an objection: if I understand well what you did, this mean that
> > ocamlopt.opt for instance will not be provided with the "ocaml" package.
> > The package I maintain has a "Build-Depends: ocaml". Its configure
> > script checks whether ocamlopt.opt is available and if so, use it
> > instead of ocamlopt (if ocamlopt is not available, it uses ocamlc). If
> > ocamlopt.opt is no longer included in ocaml, this means that it will
> > never be build with ocamlopt.opt (at least with buildd) as I cannot put
> > a dependency on ocaml-native-compilers if I want the control file of my
> > package to be architecture-independent (I like the portability of ocaml,
> > I would not like to deal with architecture-dependent problems). Is not
> > this a pity?
> But this does "only" affect the effeciency of the builld, not the
> quality of the package produced ?

Supposedly, altough the slower buildd (and especially the arm one) flok would
be very glad it stays so.

> > Maybe a fix would be to provide a "fake" ocaml-native-compilers for
> > architecture that do not support ocaml-native-compilers?
> Another possibility is that you put an architecture-dependent
> build-depends on ocaml-native-compilers. Though what you propose is
> probably the better solution.

Mmm, ralf, why do you feel a fake package would be better than a architecture
dependant build depend ?


Sven Luther

Reply to: