Ola Lundqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:54:11AM -0700, Shaun Jackman wrote:
>> Although SWT uses Java, it is not entirely platform independent. It
>> requires one jar for 32-bit architectures and one jar for 64-bit
>> architectures. I could change libswt-gtk-3.2-java to be an
> What do you mean here? Do you mean that it need a different jars for
> different architectures or that you need to create different jars for
> different architectures?
>
>> Architecture: any package -- it's currently an all package and does
>> not support 32-bit architectures -- but this seems like overkill to
>> me. I'm more inclined to release one Arch:all package for the 32-bit
>> architectures and one Arch:all package for the 64-bit architectures. A
>> meta-package would provide the correct dependency for a given
>> architecture. So, my question, what to name the 32-bit package, the
>> 64-bit package, and the meta-package? At the moment, I think I'm
>> leaning towards...
>>
>> libswt-gtk-3.2-java32
>> libswt-gtk-3.2-java64
>> libswt-gtk-3.2-java
>>
>> Any other suggestions, or completely different approaches?
>
> As I did not fully understand the question, I can not really answer
> but if it is not architecture independent (all) then it should not
> be marked as such, which means that it should be marked as any, or
> the specific architectures that it really support.
>
> Regards,
>
> // Ola
The package is architecture independent except for the
register/address size.
So i386, m68k, ppc, mips all can use the 32bit version.
S390x, amd64, ppc64, mips64 can use the 64bit version.
I think having two arch:all packages is better than having 12 arch:any
packages where they fall onto two sets of identical apckages.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
