Re: About Cameleon
On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 11:25:22AM +0200, Maxence Guesdon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > I'm sorry to answer in french but I do not want to risk that my post
> > would be misunderstood (sometimes, broken english is dangerous ;-)
>
> I'll take the risk :-)
>
> > (j'ai l'impression que) Depuis l'arrivé de Maxence dans l'équipe
> > OCaml, bcp de choses se sont accélérées en faveurs de la disponibilité
> > d'outils sympas (favorisant une utilisation + large/confortable
> > d'OCaml).
>
> Since May, 9th 2001 I was employed at the Cristal Project to
> develop tools in order to make OCaml usable (that is 'more productive')
> by industrial users. So tried to build too which make the
> development process faster and eventually safer (by using the
> strong-typing system of OCaml). I hope I didn't fail :-)
>
> But this job was for 18 months only, and should have finished
> in next november. So, since I need to eat and have a roof
> (not to mention pay my ADSL line), I chose to try to pass
> the 'concours d'ingénieur de recherche' at INRIA. I got the
> job, beginning in september. I won't be in the Cristal project
:(((
> anymore, but i will try to spare some time to keep maintaining
> and developing my tools. For this reason it will be easier
> for me to keep all my tools (well, at least my development tools)
> in one package/tarball.
this is understandable.
> Another reason is that a lot of users at complaining about all
> the packages to install separately to install, for example, epeire.
but they don't run debian, i guess ...
> > Sachant que l'équipe OCaml fonctionne sur des ressources humaines
> > réduites, il me semble prioritaire pour l'instant de favoriser les
> > développements amonts. Si Maxence estime qu'il sera plus facile pour
> > lui de gérer Cameleon de manière globale, il faut le suivre...
>
> Thanks Georges ;-)
>
> > Pour ce que je sais de la construction de paquet, il me semble que
> > cela ne pose pas trop de problème de générer des paquets distincts
> > pour les différentes applis à partir d'un tarball (en spécifiant les
> > dépendances adéquates pour obtenir la souplesse que Jérôme souhaite)
>
> In the next release of Cameleon, each tool is in a directory with
> its own Makefile (with each its install and installopt targets), so
> I think it should not be difficult to create various packages from
> one tarball. If I can facilitate the creation of various packages,
> by adding targets in Makefiles for example, let me know.
Mmm, that you will have to see with the maintainer, but from my own
experience, you can move files around with dh_movefiles, if you have a
list of the files to be moved, or you could also directly install them
in the correct directory tree.
So, you could either have a separate install target, where you set the
DESTDIR appropriately, or you could have a target that directly installs
into different directories, whose name can be given in the configuration
pass or as a makefile option.
> I'll try to provide a rpm package, too.
>
> Once the debian packages are ready, i'd like to reference them on my page
> (or host them).
Mmm, once it is packaged, they will be in the official debian archive,
in unstable and soon in testing, so it will only be a matter of having
the correct apt source files and doing an apt-get install cameleon, or
whatever, this would be more efficient i think.
You could link to the corresponding packages in the debian web pages
(the one you get when you follow the debian package link).
Packages for older released version of debian (potato, woody) would be
another matter.
BTW, Georges, what do you plan do to about this ? Woody has 3.04, and a
different stublibs placement strategy, maybe you should offer 3.06 for
woody also.
Do you intent to still support potato ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: