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-14a9...
I 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