Re: Hi, packaging mldonkey, rpath + other questions

[Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:25:10AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Stefano, you don't understand, do you ?
> 
> Probably not, I'm assuming that the two packages are interchangable, if
> you are talking about mldonkey composed by two complementary package
> (one arch:all and one arch:any), never mind.
> 
> For the rest of the mail I will assume that the two packages are
> interchangable.

Yes, they should either conflict, or better yet, the -native package
should divert the executable, and provide its own executable (with the
same name ?).

> > If we split the package, there will be 1 arch: all package with the
> > bytecode executable available for all arch, and 1 arch: any package per
> > arch supporting the native code compiler, with the native code compiler.
> > 
> > Sure it makes for 1 more package on the native code compiling arches,
> > but the bytecode package would be shared by all arches not supporting
> > it. 
> 
> I'm only posing this question: is really needed a native code executable
> of mldonkey if we already have a bytecode executable with "Arch: all"?

Mmm, the -native package are to be considered as an optimized version of
the program, and should (mostly) provide a speed benefit. 

Most packages only provide the native code version per default anyway.

BTW, native code is not always faster than bytecode, i have an example
were bytecode is faster.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

But then, maybe it is not provided 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> -- 
> Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
> zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
> "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
> sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney