On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> If you, Gérard, Hans, and the other people working on OCaml think the
> guidelines are ready we can discuss and vote to include them at next
> week's packaging meeting. The committee is meeting at Tuesday at 17:00
> UTC for about an hour in #fedora-meeting on freenode IRC.
It's in my diary.
>> (3) OCaml contains a native code compiler, but that compiler hasn't been
>> ported to all architectures that Fedora supports. It has a bytecode
>> compiler which works everywhere (but is interpreted and hence slow). I
>> haven't been very careful about detecting if native code is supported on
>> the current architecture.
>> --> ExcludeArch and/or lots of nasty %ifarch sections in %files.
>> --> I don't have a non-native arch to test on.
> What's missing? ppc64? Is there a possibility of support being added
> upstream? I can't think of any other packages/languages that have this
> problem offhand. We may need to do something nasty with subpackages and
> %ifarch but I'd rather avoid that if possible. I don't know how
> possible that is, though.
I ended up copying the solution that Debian use -- when building detect
if ocamlopt (the native code compiler) is available.
I built four packages this way, testing on a "simulated" bytecode-only
Looks good. What are the caveats to doing things this way for the %
files section? I imagine as long as wildcards are used it will work but
we might want to have an example with a comment saying that the wildcard
makes it work on both native and non-native archs.