On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 12:34:12PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 10:25:10AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > Stefano, you don't understand, do you ? > > Probably not, I'm assuming that the two packages are interchangable, if > you are talking about mldonkey composed by two complementary package > (one arch:all and one arch:any), never mind. > > For the rest of the mail I will assume that the two packages are > interchangable.
Yes, they should either conflict, or better yet, the -native package should divert the executable, and provide its own executable (with the same name ?). > > If we split the package, there will be 1 arch: all package with the > > bytecode executable available for all arch, and 1 arch: any package per > > arch supporting the native code compiler, with the native code compiler. > > > > Sure it makes for 1 more package on the native code compiling arches, > > but the bytecode package would be shared by all arches not supporting > > it. > > I'm only posing this question: is really needed a native code executable > of mldonkey if we already have a bytecode executable with "Arch: all"? Mmm, the -native package are to be considered as an optimized version of the program, and should (mostly) provide a speed benefit. Most packages only provide the native code version per default anyway. BTW, native code is not always faster than bytecode, i have an example were bytecode is faster. Friendly, Sven Luther But then, maybe it is not provided > > Cheers. > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro > "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not > sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
