On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 03:17:14AM +0100, Sven wrote:
> Ok, let's make such a policy document from the result of discution on this
> thread.
anohter idea for the policy: I think that is a good idea to rename all
the ocaml libraries. Currently we have something like: ocaml-pxp,
ocaml-xstr and so on, a clever naming schema maybe a perl like schema,
i.e. libpxp-ocaml, libxstr-ocaml.
> That said, compiling the bytecode with -custom for arches without native code
> solution is a nice idea i had'nt thought off :)))
Compiling in -custom for those arches helps only in relax dependencies
on runtime but does not really solve the native-compiler missing
problem. Moreover if we build 10 -custom compiled packages we have the
code of the runtime 10 times on the disk, rather than only one if we
depend on a runtime ocaml package.
> in this case, the -base postfix was ill choosen, or we should split off
> libraries with -runtime or something such, including the shared libraries
> needed for them.
Yes, -runtime is probably a better name.
> Also, am i right in thinking that all the shared stub libraries in the ocaml
> package got named dllxxx.so ?
> Does someone know what an rpath is , and if i trully have to worry about the
> lintian warnnng about them ?
Could you tell us what lintian warnings you get?
Cheers.
--
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:
pgpFK4Un3p344.pgp
Description: PGP signature