Re: ara and xara-gtk native packages
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 11:31:23PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:12:54AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 10:55:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 06:20:19PM +0100, Berke Durak wrote:
> > > > The Ocaml native compiler is not available under some architectures
> > > > (e.g., MIPS, ARM...). The native code packages ara and xara-gtk
> > > > should therefore not be built. But building is currently being
> > > > attempted, leading to errors, see
>
> > > > http://buildd.debian.org/build.php?pkg=ara
>
> > > > These architectures should use the ara-byte and xara-gtk-byte
> > > > packages instead.
>
> > > Previous versions of the ara packages did build on these architectures.
> > > What changed?
>
> > We now build one single ara-byte which is arch: all, so we need not burden the
> > autobuilders on these architecture (m68k, mips, mipsel and s390) which have
> > other stuff to attend anyway. This is the same thing which applies to the
> > spamoracle package, and works rather nicely.
>
> > ocaml's bytecode is in general arch-indep, so we can do the above trick, and
> > some nice provide stuff to have the ara-byte provide ara, so it will install
> > the native code ara on native code arches, and ara-byte on non-native code
> > ones, and let you install ara-byte on native arches if you like.
>
> > there is no real point of keeping 4 copies of the exact same code in the
> > archive, right ?
>
> That's true. OTOH, making ara-byte available as arch: all means that
> someone could install ara-byte on, say, i386 instead of installing the ara
> package. I'm not sure if that's what you intended when you created the
> package, or whether knowing this changes your opinion about the usefulness
> of the arch: all package...
Sure that is the aim. the arch:all ocaml package are usually built on powerpc
or i386, usually by the maintainer during the original upload.
It is a rather neat trick, and i hope someday packages like coq will follow
this procedure too, which would result in a huge archive size and most of all
autobuilder load economy. coq is a *huge* package.
> > > Errors from build attempts on the autobuilders are ignorable if the
> > > architecture is not supported, but the fact that there are old ara binaries
> > > on these architectures is something that must be resolved before the new
> > > version of the package can progress to testing.
>
> > Yep. Which is way it would be cool to get them out of the way.
>
> In which case, someone should file a bug against ftp.debian.org requesting
> removal of those binaries.
Indeed, which is what i told samuel. still such bug reports tend to be fixed
after a long time, if ever.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: