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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
