Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...
On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 08:59:55AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
Last time we discussed this, there was no consensus on this.
> > 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.
but you could build a bytecode shared version, and a custom version, for those
not wanting to install ocaml-base.
That said, i was not considering it seriously, not as you understood it
anyway, ...
> > 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.
let's name the shared part of the libs (i guess only the dllxxx.so are needed)
lib-runtime or lib-rt and split it out.
> > 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?
The same in my previous post :
W: ocaml: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/lib/ocaml/labltk/dlllabltk41.so /usr/lib:/usr/X11R6/lib
W: ocaml: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/lib/ocaml/dllgraphics.so /usr/X11R6/lib
These are only warnings, but i guess it means that labltk and graphics have
absolut path to these library locations. Other dlls of the ocaml package have
not such problems, but then maybe they only use thestandard path.
Is this going to cause problem, or can we safely ignore it for now ?
Also the dllxxx.so name as a windowish flavour i am not sure i like all tat
much, ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: