Re: Cameleon packages almost done

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

On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:39:54PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:44:49PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:28:29PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:32:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This leaves more flexibility to the user, and would allow to do a
> > > > binary:all package build even on a native code supporting arch.
> > > 
> > >   Which is only true for libraries. It isn't for binaries since
> > >   standalone byteocde programs embed the bytecode interpreter
> > >   which is architecture dependent.
> > 
> > ???
> > 
> > I don't understand you.
> > 
> > The idea is to build one package arch: all which you build with the
> > bytecode compiler (and without the -custom flag). The resulting
> > executables will be /usr/bin/ocamlrun script, as can be seen with the
> > ledit package for example :
> > 
> > $ file /usr/bin/ledit
> > /usr/bin/ledit: a /usr/bin/ocamlrun script text executable
> 
> Is it standalone or does it need to have ocaml installed
> (providing /usr/bin/ocamlrun)?

Naturally, it needs to have ocaml-base installed, but that is ok, since
it is a small package (Installed-Size: 520Ko, package is 171068o). That
is exactly why we did the split in the first place, no nead to have a copy of all
the libraries and ocamlrun in all the executables built as bytecode. I
think that doing otherwise may even be against debian's policy, not sure
though.

Anyway, the idea is that most people will install the native code
version anyway, and thus don't need either ocaml-base nor the stublibs
packages.

There may well be some naming issues involved though, too sad that it is
not possible to have an arch:all and a arch:any package with the same
name.

Friendly,

Sven Luther