Hi, Sven LUTHER: > Is there a way to handle this so that apt will get the native code > package if it is available, and resort to the bytecode one on arches not > supporting the native code compiler ? Some sort of priorities or > something such ? > 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)
The latter two provide a common symbol "ocaml-runtime", both require ocaml; ocaml requires "ocaml-runtime"; either -native can conflict with -bytecode and vice versa, or you select which you want via the alternatives mechanism. For archs which don't have a native compiler, there's simply no choice. > BTW, is there a more appropriated list for this kind of question ? > Not that I know of. > BTW2, if i go with virtual packages, i will most probably run with > problems on versioned dependencies You don't need them here. -bytecode and -native can even be versioned independently; if a program has a problem with an old -native it can register a conflict with lower versions of it. -- Matthias Urlichs | noris network AG | http://smurf.noris.de/
