Bug#824693: ocaml: Enable native compilers in ppc64el starting at version 4.03
Package: ocaml
Version: 4.02.3-6
Severity: important
Tags: patch
Currently, the package ocaml-native-compilers is not being built for ppc64el
because the patch to enable it still not available in version 4.02.3.
Starting at version 4.03, the patch to enable native compiler on ppc64el is
integrated into the source code (SVN revision 16374) and [1], thus, I would
like to have package omcal-native-compilers targeting ppc64el.
OcamL native compiler is required to be enable in order to enable hhvm package,
which build-depends on ocaml-native-compilers.
The patches to enable ocaml-native-compilers package to be built on ppc64el
when using version 4.03 is attached.
[1] https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/225
PS: I may backport the upstream patches to 4.02 if you think that 4.03 will not
make Debian soon.
--- debian/native-archs.old 2016-05-18 14:32:35.755331340 -0400
+++ debian/native-archs 2016-05-18 14:33:21.220295272 -0400
@@ -1 +1 @@
-amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc sparc
+amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc ppc64el sparc
--- debian/natdynlink-archs.old 2016-05-18 14:32:56.627773846 -0400
+++ debian/natdynlink-archs 2016-05-18 14:33:10.268063067 -0400
@@ -1 +1 @@
-amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc sparc
+amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc ppc64el sparc
--- debian/control.old 2016-05-18 14:49:33.897048690 -0400
+++ debian/control 2016-05-18 14:49:45.753301569 -0400
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ Description: Runtime system for OCaml by
you do not require any graphical capabilities for your runtime.
Package: ocaml-native-compilers
-Architecture: amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc sparc
+Architecture: amd64 arm64 armel armhf hurd-i386 i386 kfreebsd-i386 kfreebsd-amd64 lpia powerpc ppc64el sparc
Depends:
ocaml-nox (= ${binary:Version}),
gcc, binutils,
Reply to: