Re: Cameleon build failures
Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
>> I'll see in the next build.
>
> I will try to build it by hand, that would be enough, we don't need a
> new upload (which may fail) to notice this.
I've just uploaded a fix.
...
>> Then don't ship it unpacked. You can ship it as a tarball that would
>> be located in /usr/src.
>
> This doesn't change anything.
What's the problem, again?
>> > And anyway, depending on the source is _not_ nice. Imagine a package
>> > which would depend on the gcc sources.
>>
>> GNAT, the Ada compiler needs the sources of gcc 2.8.1 to build.
>> It includes the whole sources of gcc 2.8.1 even if it is not part
>> of the same tarball. So you can either build-depend on sources or
>> include them, but it is the same this IMHO.
>
> And GNAT is currently orphaned, right ?
In the WNPP pages yes, but someone is working on a new upstream
release. But what are you trying to prove with this?
>> > Also there is no guarantee that the ocaml-sources would be configured
>> > the same way as when ocaml was built, which can lead to many problems.
>>
>> That is why shipping the tarball unpack is a good tradeoff.
>
> I don't understand, are you speaking the tarball of the whole ocaml
> build tree ? It will be huge.
The ocaml tarball. Not that huge, 2.5 Megs and arch:all, this is
pretty small.
>> For example, kernel patches need kernel source to compile.
>
> Well, sure, and kernel modules also. But i don't think that you can
> compare that to the ocaml situation, at least if you ask me, you cannot.
>
> I think it is ugly for an app to do so.
Alright, do what you want. I have enough. Bye.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: