Re: ocaml packaging policy ... (some points review)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 04:10:31PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> > 1) Ocaml-ldconf and ld.conf handling
> >
> > Contrary to the standard ocaml distribution, the path to
> > directories containing shared stub libraries is handled in two
> > different files, the user editable /etc/ocaml/ld.conf and the dpkg
> > handled /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf.
>
> This sounds unclear to me, does the path is formed by the union of the
> two files or not?
The two files are parsed by ocaml-ldconf to generate the standard
/usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf, as in the proposal of denis barbier which you will
find in a previous mail on this list. I need to write a proper documentation
about it though.
> > The ocaml-ldconf tool is used to generate the ld.conf file used by
> > the ocamlrun program.
> >
> <snip>
> >
> > finally, the ocaml-ldconf program can also be used with the -l
> > argument to show a list of all current files in the ld.conf file.
> > It doesn't yet show the paths provided by other means (environment
> > variable and other such)
>
> May we add an example here? I think that such a policy should also be
> used be new maintainer that wants to approach the ocaml packaging so an
> example may be useful. I can wrote down an example as soon as I manage
> to have an ocaml 3.04-6 package :)
Yes, an example would be nice.
> > - libxxx-ocaml will provide the shared library stubs, and all
> > other stuff needed to run a dynamic loading ocaml bytecode
> > executable that
>
> yuk, I like this naming schema :-)
:))
> > - all bytecode executables should be dynamic loading, so as to
> > not bloat the archive.
>
> Uhm ... to fascistic IMHO. We sould respect the upstream whishes.
Well, the upstream authors are not having the same problems we have.
But if you like, please rewrite this one so as to not be as strong, maybe a
'should preferably' or something such.
But again, often upstream like statically linked code, so as to not have
problems with not installed dlls, which is a problem non existant in debian.
Thus i think if some maintainer would upload statically linked bytecode, he
should provide at least a good reason for it.
So maybe adding an exception to the above asking for a justification in the
case of static linking should be ok also.
Alos not e, i guess it is against debian policy to upoad static executables,
and we should comply with that also.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
> zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
> "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
> sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
Reply to: