Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 02:14:20PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> [ Minor: probably we have to start thinking about write an
> ocaml-debian-policy like, the python-debian-policy. I.e. a set of
> guidelines for packaging ocaml sw in debian ]
Yes, I think this is a good idea.
> > Executables :
> > We will split the packages into a bytecode one (normal name) and a
> > nativecode one (adding -native to the name).
I think in most cases the maintainer of a package can decide whether he
wants to build a bytecode package or a native package. Both have
advantages and disadvantages:
- bytecode: these would have architecture=all. Advantage: Only one
package for all architectures. The package could depend on ocaml-run,
hence the package would be quite small. Since architecture=all the
autobuilders don't have to touch it.
Disadvantage: Execution is slower than for native, but this might be
acceptable for packages that are not critical on execution time
(like: bibtex2html, ocamlweb).
- native: these would have architecture=any. Advantage: Faster
execution, hence this would certainly be used for packages like coq.
Disadvantge: One binary package per architecture,
and problems with architecture which don't support native code
compilation. In this case two solutions:
- compile to byte code with -custom for these architectures (this is
what we do now)
- compile to byte code and depend only for these architectures on
ocaml-run. This seems to me the better solution.
I guess that in most of the cases the package maintainer an decide which
of the two he wants to apply for his package.