On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 07:38:05PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Sven LUTHER wrote: > > Well, what about the coq for example, which is 7 MB package (on i386, so > > maybe it is bigger for other arches) and 20MB installed. > > I guess it's on the line.
I thought so, But sure, this is the biggest project using ocaml. More may come in the future though. I think the rate of ocaml programs being made available is increasing, at least i see that from the announcement that are being made, and many of them are not yet packaged. > > There is also the buildd resources, especially on the slower > > arches. I guess it takes much time to build coq on m68k for example, > > while i could have built the exact same executable on my i386 box. > > So build all the bytecode architectures on your i386 box. :-) It > actually is doable. Mmm, and upload 5 versions of it ? I now have ADSL, but i guess people with slow modems will be not at all happy about proposing a solution like that. BTW, I don't only propose this for me, but there are a few maintainers which package ocaml stuff and which are more directly concerned than me. I am just writing a policy proposal for all things related to ocaml, so each package related to it will be packaged with a uniform way, without too much surprise for our users. > > > If you really wanted to solve this one right, you could think about > > > implementing Marcus Brinkman's idea that lets packages depend on their > > > architecture(s). That's nice because it solves the general problem you > > > are running into: That of arch "all" packages that are really only > > > useful on a subset of architectures. > > > > Mmm, do you have a pointer to were i can look more at this ideas. > > I haven't been able to dig it up easily. Ok, i will look at it. Thanks for your help, Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
