On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:53:56PM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > Yes, but if it is no more work, why not do it. And also, you get the > > benefit of not needing the non native code supporting autobuilders. > I don't really care if it would be more work. It is too many package. > Cameleon is about 16 and it is enough and maybe too much. Well, hopefully this week end I can look at my packages and also at cameleon. Anyway I need to know from you, Jerome, if you are contrary just because it's a lot of work that you consider not-so-useful or for some other reasons. In other words: have you any problem if I perform the needed changes on the cameleon package? [ for the reason why I support the native/byte splitting see below ] > I really think that it is turning into a disk space _obsession_. <snipped a lot of good arguments against disk space obsession> I agrre with all your arguments atainst disk space obsession, disk space is really not a problem. Anyway I'm in favour of the byte/native splitting because it can really avoid a lot of problems related to autobuilder. Consider that most of the architecture which doesn't have a native code compiler are also the ones that have a long autobuilder queue. Moreover many times I had the need to ask on a porter list to rebuild a package which for strange reasons was not considered for the building, ecc ... The fewer autobuilders we need to 'disturb' to rebuild our packages, the better. My 0.02 EUR, Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Uni. 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
Attachment:
pgpDUwSZ_7Ehe.pgp
Description: PGP signature