Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:59:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 06:45:37PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > > Great. I will build a bytecode binary-all and a optimised with
> > > > arch=i386,alpha,...<archs that have ocamlopt>.
> > >
> > > Yes, you could also split the package in two binaries, the first one
> > > being a bytecode package, and arch: all, the other being a native code
> > > package and arch: <list of supported arches>.
Thats what I said :)
> > Please consider if there is a real need to have both version of the
> > package? Is mldonkey a cpubound software? If this is not the case and if
> > the user can have no advantages in using a nativecode version then go
> > for a bytecode-only arch:all version.
>
> Stefano, you don't understand, do you ?
I think he ment just have one binary-all package. One for all, not one
bytecode version for each arch.
MfG
Goswin
