En réponse à Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Since the bytecode executables are arch independent, i think it would
> be
> > nice to build them arch: all, since this would mean, apart from
> smaller
> > sized packages, also that we don't have 12+ version of the same thing
> in
> > the archive (well, at least we can spare all the arches which do not
> > support native code compilers).
> >
> > But then, on arches supporting the native code compiler, we want to
> > build the app as native code, since this will result in faster
> > executables.
>
> Well if I were you I would avoid the route of splitting off a bunch of
> -bytecode and -native packages and simply make it arch any and build
> natice packages on arches where I could, and bytecode packages
> elsewhere. It uses up a bit of archive space, but is no worse than any
> compiled program. Trying to save a snidgeon of archive space just
> because you can here is a kind of false optimization, as you are
> introducing a lot of unnecessary complexity, both for yourself and for
> the user in the process of doing so. If these packages are 20 or 100
> mb
> in size, it might be worth trying to optimize for space, but if they
> are
> fairly normal in size, it's probably more important to package them in
> a
> comprehensible and simple manner.
This is exactly what I think.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://marant.org
