On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:42:40AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:34:11AM +0100, Judica�l Courant wrote: > > > > I have an objection: if I understand well what you did, this mean that > > ocamlopt.opt for instance will not be provided with the "ocaml" package. > > The package I maintain has a "Build-Depends: ocaml". Its configure > > script checks whether ocamlopt.opt is available and if so, use it > > instead of ocamlopt (if ocamlopt is not available, it uses ocamlc). If > > ocamlopt.opt is no longer included in ocaml, this means that it will > > never be build with ocamlopt.opt (at least with buildd) as I cannot put > > a dependency on ocaml-native-compilers if I want the control file of my > > package to be architecture-independent (I like the portability of ocaml, > > I would not like to deal with architecture-dependent problems). Is not > > this a pity? > > But this does "only" affect the effeciency of the builld, not the > quality of the package produced ?
Supposedly, altough the slower buildd (and especially the arm one) flok would be very glad it stays so. > > Maybe a fix would be to provide a "fake" ocaml-native-compilers for > > architecture that do not support ocaml-native-compilers? > > Another possibility is that you put an architecture-dependent > build-depends on ocaml-native-compilers. Though what you propose is > probably the better solution. Mmm, ralf, why do you feel a fake package would be better than a architecture dependant build depend ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
