Re: Cameleon build failures
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:05:32PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
>
>
> > Maybe it is this. I am busy right now, but a good solution to see if it
> > is this would be to try building ocaml on a sparc box.
>
> I'll see in the next build.
I will try to build it by hand, that would be enough, we don't need a
new upload (which may fail) to notice this.
> >> > Because i don't like ocaml source.
> >>
> >> Ah, you don't like it. But it was created at the request of Ralf
> >> who needed it as well.
> >
> > But does he still need it ? Which package was it anyway ?
>
> Better ask him directly.
Ok, will do.
> > And i don't like it, because it is huge and unwieldy, user get confused
> > about it and try to build ocaml from it (and fail and fill bug reports).
>
> Then don't ship it unpacked. You can ship it as a tarball that would
> be located in /usr/src.
This doesn't change anything.
> > And anyway, depending on the source is _not_ nice. Imagine a package
> > which would depend on the gcc sources.
>
> GNAT, the Ada compiler needs the sources of gcc 2.8.1 to build.
> It includes the whole sources of gcc 2.8.1 even if it is not part
> of the same tarball. So you can either build-depend on sources or
> include them, but it is the same this IMHO.
And GNAT is currently orphaned, right ?
> > Also there is no guarantee that the ocaml-sources would be configured
> > the same way as when ocaml was built, which can lead to many problems.
>
> That is why shipping the tarball unpack is a good tradeoff.
I don't understand, are you speaking the tarball of the whole ocaml
build tree ? It will be huge.
> For example, kernel patches need kernel source to compile.
Well, sure, and kernel modules also. But i don't think that you can
compare that to the ocaml situation, at least if you ask me, you cannot.
I think it is ugly for an app to do so.
> >> > > I already worked on this and it is far more complicated than
> >> > > shipping some files. In my case, there are so many dependencies,
> >> > > that it is simple to build against a self-compiled ocaml-source.
> >> >
> >> > This is something i need to discuss with your upstream i think, not
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> There is no issue here. If you don't want to ship ocaml-source, you
> >> can remove it. It is easy for anyone to build a dedicated
> >> ocaml-source package from the ocaml tarball.
> >
> > :(((
> >
> > This would not solve the potention for misconfigurations.
>
> This would save _your_ problems, since you seems to want to get
> rid of your problems with it.
No, the problem is if i enable an option in the ocaml build, and you
enable another (incompatible one) in the source needing package.
> > And it is an issue which needs to be discussed with upstream. If the
> > package can't get built without a part of the source, then either part
> > of it need to be integrated with the sources (as Maxence patches, more
> > to this this in a later mail) or maybe ocaml should ship more stuff.
>
> The point is that I need them currently, whatever will be changed
> in future releases of cameleon.
That is why i think it is important to speak with upstream about this.
> > But the main point is that i like to ship the .cmi/.cmo/cmx/... and not
> > the sources.
>
> Then remove ocaml-source, you don't have to tell us.
Yes, but unless certain other debian developpers, i realize i may be
wrong.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: