Re: Hi, packaging mldonkey, rpath + other questions

[Goswin Brederlow <goswin.brederlow@student.uni-tuebingen.de>]

Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:

> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:59:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:45:37PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > Great. I will build a bytecode binary-all and a optimised with
> > > > arch=i386,alpha,...<archs that have ocamlopt>.
> > > 
> > > Yes, you could also split the package in two binaries, the first one
> > > being a bytecode package, and arch: all, the other being a native code
> > > package and arch: <list of supported arches>.

Thats what I said :)

> > Please consider if there is a real need to have both version of the
> > package? Is mldonkey a cpubound software? If this is not the case and if
> > the user can have no advantages in using a nativecode version then go
> > for a bytecode-only arch:all version.
> 
> Stefano, you don't understand, do you ?

I think he ment just have one binary-all package. One for all, not one
bytecode version for each arch.

MfG
        Goswin