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-14a9d22...
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