Re: other META: lablgl, lablgtkgl, ...
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 10:51:47AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 07:35:45PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Basically, lablgl has 2 libraries, lablgl.cma and togl.cma.
>
> Ok, so, assuming that the link order is as above, this is a trivial META
> file for lablgl:
>
> --- CUT HERE ---
> requires=""
> version="0.99"
>
> # bytecode
> archive(byte)="lablgl.cma"
> archive(byte,togl)="lablgl.cma togl.cma"
>
> # native code
> archive(native)="lablgl.cmxa"
> archive(native,togl)="lablgl.cmxa togl.cmxa"
> --- CUT HERE ---
Ok, i will do it this evening.
> BTW please try building a lablgl package with this META, then I can test
> it before the upload.
>
> > Now, the difficult part, if you use lablgl with lablgtkgl, you need
> > lablgl, lablgtk and lablgtkgl, which are found in directory +lablgtk and
> > +lablGL.
>
> Regarding lablgtkgl my suggestion is to install it in a separate
> directory under the ocaml standard library directory so that a single
> debian package installs multiple ocamlfind package, pxp does the same.
Erm, this is ugly ...
lablgtkgl is part of lablgtk, and there is no sane reason for moving it
elsewhere (and i will not).
The only reason for doing this a hacky workaround to the too big META
files. If you want to know, i would simply copy the lablgtk
archives(...) entries and add a lablgtkgl or whatever predicate to the
second copy.
> So we can have /usr/lib/ocaml/3.06/lablgtkgl and a "lablgtkgl" findlib
> package which "requires" lablgl and lablgtk.
Mmm, dependencies are another issue.
> > Mmm, the ordering you speak is about linking order ? Is it really needed
> > to order these ? i guess yes.
>
> Ehm ... yes, the usual OCaml linking trickyness :)
>
> > Anyway, what about doing this the other way around, having a listing of
> > all objects/file/archives/whatever, and for each one, the predicates
> > they support. The ordering would be for the natural ordering of them,
> > take for example (using lablgtk, lablgl, togl and lablgtkgl as
> > examples).
>
> Maybe, but please speak of this approach with the upstream author, not
> with me ;)
Mmm, he is subscribed to this list, is he not ? I have not much time for
this right now though. Will try to send him a mail this evening.
> > > Anyway remember that a META file isn't seen by the final user, it's
> > > written once by the upstream author or the maintainter it's size is not
> > > so painful IMO.
> > Well, but it is in O(2^n), which is not nice, imagine writing a meta
> > file for a package with 10 libraries ? with 20 ?
>
> The idea is to split different findlib package along with their METAs,
> again pxp use this approach, I have used this approach in other
> not-so-small projects and all works well.
Yes, but you clutter the files all over the place in a lot of
directories. It would be simpler if you could keep them in the same
place, but have multiple META files ? META.lablgtk.1 and META.lablgtk.2
for example ?
Having everything in the same directory would solve this, i think, since
you could then have META.lablgtk and META.lablgtkgl, but keep the
lablgtk and lablgtkgl libraries in the same subdir (+lablgtk).
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: