On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 04:56:58PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > On the other hand, we can surely state in the ocaml packaging policy to > > build, where possible and useful (i.e. not cpu bound programs), > > architecture independent ocaml based _programs_, this will be surely an > > improvement for the user and for the spreading of ocaml programs. > > Yes, and even go beyond that, every ocaml program should be built as a > split binary package, where the package is built in bytecode, and a > -native or something version is also built on the archs supporting > native code compilation, and would divert the executable from the > bytecode version or something. Uhm, this seems to me too overkilling. I will consider splitting the -native package only for programs that really are cpu bound (e.g. surely I don't need a ledit-native packag e :-) so the final choice is left to the maintainer. Anyway we may mention something like that on the policy, just to let the maintainer think about it. > > Regarding the additional .debs that the user have to download (mainly > > the additional 'ocaml-base' package, IMO this is not a problem because > > it have to be downloaded only once and promote future reusability. > > Yes, but it may also be lablgtk, i think. Ok, but if you ship a program statically linked with lablgtk, you, in some way, have donwloaded a lot of stuff from lablgtk anyway ... 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
Attachment:
pgpT6zfcftW0e.pgp
Description: PGP signature