On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:20:41PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 04:23:05PM +0100, Sven wrote: > > No, arch: all is not the same as arch: any. > > > > arch: all is a package which can run on all arches, whereas arch: any is a > > package that can be built on all arches. > > > > See the difference. > > ok, I don't know this difference. > Does this mean that a bytecode package will be compiled only one time > rather than one for each arch?
Yes, that is the main benefit ... > BTW, do you know where this difference is explainge, I've looked in the > policy but the explaination I found is a bit confusing for me... huh ? i think it is written in the debian developper reference stuff. Anyway, all is for docs and other arch indep stuff, like shell scripts and such. > > Imagine a apt frontend coded in ocaml bytecode and using lablgtk as interface > > :))) > > world domination ;) > > The "arch: all" point is really relevant, when I will understand the > whole implications probably I fully agree with you and go splitting all > ocaml packages. And the m68k guys will be very very happy with this. > > > > But then, we can make this policy and apply it for woody+1. The > > > > important part > <snip> > > Yes, let's wait for after woody for this, unless something important > > happens before the freeze, and the freeze is not delayed ad eternam. > > Sure, BTW we can also wait the end of my exams ;) (that ends in > december). Good luck to you ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
