On Fre, 2002-10-04 at 10:09, Sven LUTHER wrote: > On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 09:12:52AM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote: > > > > 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) > > Well, it is not so much about the ocaml package, which is already > suitably splitted (the bytecode interpreter is in ocaml-base), but about > packages built with ocaml. > > > 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. > > Ok, but then the user will have to specify which version they want > installed, and this is what i wanted to solve. That is, i want for the > user not to have to worry about the native/bytecode packages, and have > the best available installed when he does apt-get install foo.
Don't provide foo-runtime, but make foo depend on foo-native | foo-bytecode? mono works in a similar way, it depends on mono-jit | mono-interpreter. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast
