--- Begin Message ---<Ganneff> someone please look at #377499 and tell me if thats the way to go (see the changelog at the bottom) <jcristau> that's one way to do it <jcristau> another one would be to build freetennis as arch:any and detect at build time whether ocamlopt or ocamlc should be used <Ganneff> so from "ocaml-view" that way is ok with the extra package stuff? <jcristau> I'd say yes <Ganneff> hrm. i prefer the detect way. <Ganneff> as you need to know the arch where it works anyways. <Ganneff> and it doesnt use another package. <jcristau> I tend to agree <jcristau> but IIRC there were people who preferred the foo-byte way <Ganneff> well. any good reason? <jcristau> mostly that the arch-independent bytecode (built with ocamlc)is not duplicated <jcristau> on the mirrors, I mean <Ganneff> in this case thats big enough to be in a seperate package anyways <jcristau> the idea is that foo-byte is built only once, and arch:all, while the native code version is built where ocamlopt exists, that's not really related to having a foo-common package or not <smimou> here I would go for one package <smimou> freetennis is not so long to build or so big <jcristau> smimou: you mean 'detect at build-time whether ocamlopt is available'? <smimou> yes <Ganneff> jcristau: the -common can be split here anyways, its large enough. i only question the -byte one, as i dont see a good reason for it, if all you need to do is to use another compiler. <jcristau> Ganneff: I agree <Ganneff> thx
--- End Message ---
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
