[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...

On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 01:53:06PM +0100, Sven wrote:
>   o ocaml will recommend ledit
I prefere "suggests" because a user may only need the ocaml compiler and
not the toploop, moreover a user may want to use the toploop without

>   o i am not sure about splitting off a camlp4 package ?
the binary package is sized 4Mb so probably is a good idea.

> Beside that we have to decide what is going to happen to the libraries and
> executable packages, which regard to native/bytecode.

> What do you think of it ?

mainly, that all is stuff have not to be done before freeze.
This involve a lot of package updates and is better to delay it after

[ 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 ]


> Libraries :
>   We will split the packages into a bytecode one (normal name) and a
>   nativecode one (adding -native to the name).
>   Not sure if it is trully necessary to split them, what do you all think
>   about it ?

The idea is a bit interesting, but I think we have to find the
advantages before dive in this substantial set of changes.
I can't find a lot of advantages: yes the generated packages are smaller
for archs that support native code compilation, but we are not talking
about 10megs or so sized packages.
PXP, one of the bigger libraries, doesn't reach the 6Mb size.
Again, a user that install a library probabily want to develop and
probabily he want do develop both native and bytecode version. So who
need to install only one of the two flavoues for libraries?

> Executables :
>   We will split the packages into a bytecode one (normal name) and a
>   nativecode one (adding -native to the name).

this is more interesting because who use an executable probably does not
need both versions.
But again if a user have an arch on which native code compilation is not
supported he have to use the native code executable.
A user that have the possibility of use the native code executable, why
want to use the bytecode version?
Remember that executable in binary package are normally stripped as
stated in the policy so the debugging possibility on bytecode is not a
valid reason here.

So splitting packages in bytecode and native part is nice and elegant,
but I can't find, at the moment, valid adavantages in doing this split.
If we reach a substantial advantage I will be very happy to enjoy X-Mas
splitting OCaml packages ;)


Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
                 - Information wants to be Open -

Attachment: pgpUfl1V_gqbT.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: