On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 01:33:30PM -0400, Alan Dunn wrote: > Does anyone know whether OCaml library main packages (non-devel > packages) should be packaged as no-arch, since they only contain > bytecode files, which should be architecture independent? This is incorrect. For common architectures, OCaml generates native machine code - bytecode is only used as a fallback for archs with no native code generator backend. virt-top for example is written in OCaml and is clearly arch dependant: $ file virt-top virt-top: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
