Re: ocaml compiled binaries and rpath
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 03:18:29PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > And you really cannot put them in a separate C library that is common to
> > both stub libs ?
>
> It would not make much sense. We are talking about a very small set
> of #define and 1-line functions. Each binding should always provide
> its own separate 50-lines C library. Moreover, I do not see
> anything bad a priori in one binding using another one.
No the idea is to move the common part to a separate library, which is
provided by the first package and used by the second. But it don't
really solve anything and pose the same problems of the symbolic link in
/usr/lib.
> > 2) imagine you have more than one version of the library around, or
> > two different ocaml runtime (ocaml-3.06 and ocaml-3.07 for example),
> > then you would have to choose which of these you will have installed
> > in the ld.so aware library or in the /etc/ld.so.conf file.
>
> That's convince me. Probably moving the symbolic links to
> /usr/lib (and using versioned .so names) is the best option.
Yes and no. What would you do when you build the same version of the
library for both ocaml-3.06 and ocaml-3.07 ? Would you bump the so name
for the second or something such ?
Altough normally the stublibs should not suffer from incompatibility
between different ocaml versions, should they ?
> > Finally, maybe all this shows that there is a propper usage of rpath
> > finally, and that the ocaml_packaging_policy should allow rpath for
> > these cases, and these cases only.
>
> Maybe. But the scary scenario of Denis where you end up compiling
> against an old version still applied, doesn't it?
We don't care. It is just a matter of discipline, you build your
packages in pbuilder or upload source only and let the autobuilders do
their job.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: