On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 12:23:41PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > Hi, > > Stefano Zacchiroli: > > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > I'd split the packages in three: > > > - ocaml (arch-independent, common stuff) > > > - ocaml-bytecode (ditto, bytecode interpreter) > > > - ocaml-native (arch-dependent, compiles to native code) > > > > You miss the point: the ocaml package is already split properly, the > > question arise for application builts with ocaml compilers. > > > Oh. *scratches head, re-reads initial email* > I did not see that, given this email. Sorry.
Yes, my fault, i wanted to write it, but must have forgotten or something. > Anyway, the same three-way split technique can be used for any package > using ocaml => take my email and s/ocaml/your-package/g. > > As for the user's choice ... I did miss the reference to apt-get in the > original email, as I was mistakenly of the opinion that it would, like > dselect, actually ask which dependent package to install if there's a > choice. At the moment the manpage says that apt-get randomly selects a > package which fulfills a virtual dependency. (That probably means "it uses > the first one it sees in the package list". :-/ ) That shold be fixed; as > .deb control files currently don't have a priority field, the first step > would probably be to file a bug report^W^W feature request asking for its > addition. Or do it yourself and submit a patch... Yes, i guess that would be nice. Mmm, should i fill a bug report against apt, or is there a better mailing list to discuss these things. In case i submit a patch or something such, should i discuss things first, or just go ahead and implement it ? BTW, do you think apt-get (in its current incarnation) will choose a true package in priority over a virtual one ? that is if i have foo and bar (bar providing foo) and i do a apt-get install foo, will it choose foo over bar, or select randomly ? Alternatively, we could also have the both a foo_1.0-1_all.deb and a foo_1.0-1_i386.deb (for example) in the archive, and have the per arch PAckages file point to the native code one (foo_1.0-1_i386.deb) when it is available, and to the byte code one (foo_1.0-1_all.deb) if it is not. But then this will not allow an user to install the bytecode executable unless he hand installs it. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
