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

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.

-Ralf.



Reply to: