Re: stublibs and bytecode only packages. Was: Re: Plans [Re: Cameleon 1.0]
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 06:45:54PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
Yes, sure, but ledit makes for a nice experimentation place.
> Anyway we may mention something like that on the policy, just to let the
> maintainer think about it.
Yes, the nice way of having a bytecode only package, is that it will not
need rebuild on all the arches not supporting the native code compiler.
> > > 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 ...
:)))
And it cannot be stripped.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: