On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > 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-14a9d22bff07b51f58d01bb4e79bcbe98e426a7c > > I built four packages this way, testing on a "simulated" bytecode-only > architecture. > Looks good. What are the caveats to doing things this way for the % files section? I imagine as long as wildcards are used it will work but we might want to have an example with a comment saying that the wildcard makes it work on both native and non-native archs. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
