Re: Cameleon packages almost done

[Sven Luther <luther@lambda.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 02:06:00PM +0200, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> Hello again,
> 
> >   - what naming policy should I use for ocaml program that have
> >     a quite generic name (for example "report"). Should I use
> >     a ocaml- prefix? How do we consider a program name is
> >     too generic?
> 
> My two cents : every tool which is for a "development with OCaml" usage only should be called ocaml-XXX (ocaml-report, ocaml-zoggy, ...), while applications which in the end does not depend on OCaml should be called by their name only, like 'mldonkey'. Maybe i did not choose right names at the beginning...
>    
> >   Now, I have a request to Maxence: for any ocaml program in
> >   Cameleon, you should build either the bytecode version or
> >   the native one; I don't think building both is usefull.
> >   Currently, in the debian package, I'm providing only the
> >   native version when available and the bytecode one when not
> >   (with the same name).
> 
> Hum, yes, but not for all. For example, cameleon native and bytecode versions differ because the bytecode version allows the plug-in loading, but native version is faster. For tools where native and byte code versions do the same, I agree that I should only compile byt OR native. I'll do this in the future.
> But keeping bytecode AND native is good, isn't it ?

Yes, especiallly since debian supports some arches were native code is
not supported.

Well, the ideal way of doing this is to have three makefile targets, one
that builds bytecode, one that builds native, and one that checks if
ocamlopt is present or something such, and then chooses either bytecode
or nativecode.

This leaves more flexibility to the user, and would allow to do a
binary:all package build even on a native code supporting arch.

Friendly,

Sven Luther