Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
If you, Gérard, Hans, and the other people working on OCaml think the guidelines are ready we can discuss and vote to include them at next week's packaging meeting. The committee is meeting at Tuesday at 17:00 UTC for about an hour in #fedora-meeting on freenode IRC.
It's in my diary.
(3) OCaml contains a native code compiler, but that compiler hasn't been ported to all architectures that Fedora supports. It has a bytecode compiler which works everywhere (but is interpreted and hence slow). I haven't been very careful about detecting if native code is supported on the current architecture.--> ExcludeArch and/or lots of nasty %ifarch sections in %files. --> I don't have a non-native arch to test on.What's missing? ppc64? Is there a possibility of support being added upstream? I can't think of any other packages/languages that have this problem offhand. We may need to do something nasty with subpackages and %ifarch but I'd rather avoid that if possible. I don't know how possible that is, though.
I ended up copying the solution that Debian use -- when building detect if ocamlopt (the native code compiler) is available.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml?action=show#head-14a9d22bff07b51f58d01bb4e79bcbe98e426a7cI built four packages this way, testing on a "simulated" bytecode-only architecture.
Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
