Re: ocaml 3.04 packaging issues ...
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:53:43PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
>
> > > Does version 3.04-2 of the runtime package contain the libraries that
> > > are used by the runtime system? bc packages loose a lot of their
> > > potential advantages when a user needs to install the ocaml development
> > > package to run them.
> >
> > I have ready 4 packages, ocaml, ocaml-doc, lablgl and lablgtk.
> >
> > In the case of libraries, i have a full package and a runtime package with
> > oinly the dlls, in the same manner as the ocaml-base package.
>
> I'm not in favor of splitting libraries into full package and runtime.
> This will bloat the archive with multiple packages and the benefits
> of this are not worth the split IMO (this is ok for ocaml itself
> however).
Could you explain a bit more ?
It is the same split that the one between libxxx and libxxx-dev, maybe we
should name them as such, maybe it is even policy, not sure though.
The -runtime is the shared libraries, while the normal name is the
developpment package.
Imagine i do a apt frontend with lablgtk, and distribute it as architecture
independent bytecode package. I would need only the 4 small dlls of the
lablgtk-runtime and ocaml-base, not the big whole of them.
If we don't split these packages like that, there is not really a point into
splitting ocaml-base away too.
Anyway, let's discuss about this more, it can still be changed if things are
better in some other way.
But notice, this is _not_ the bytecode/nativecode split i was advocating some
time ago, just the splitting of the shared libraries needed by bytecode
executable.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> --
> Jérôme Marant
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: