[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

ocaml 3.07 packages.



Hello, ...

I have begun work on making a ocaml-3.07 3.06.99.2003.07.05-1 package
out of yesterdays CVS, and am working on a patch to add a suffix to the
binaries. I will upload packages later today to :

  http://people.debian.org/~luther/ocaml-3.07

and will accept uploads of other packages that were built with it also,
so we can have a private repository for it.

As said, libraries are in /usr/lib/ocaml/3.07, so cause no problems,
binaries will all have the -3.07 suffix, and i modified the camlheader
file, so ocamlc will generate ocamlrun-3.07 executables, but other
things are missing, especially the emacs files, the manpages and so on.
If you feel like providing me patches, i would be happy to accept them,
but inform the list first in order to avoid duplicate work.

I will not provide symlinks, these can be added later on, once we are
satisfied with the package, and probably will come with the ocaml
wrapper package instead.

Also, i guess it will always be possible to run these bytecode programs
on other system with ocamlrun <bytecode_file>, so there should be not
much of a problem.

Also, i would like to change the ocaml-3.07 package to the dpatch thing,
but have not looked at how to do it yet, if someone want to provide a
patch for this, you are welcome.

And last, i have a question about optimized files, should they be :

  ocamlc-3.07.opt 

or 

  ocamlc.opt-3.07

I have no experience with really using those, but i suppose that the
build systems using the .opt compilers simply add a .opt at the end,
thus i have privileged the first solution.

Finally, shame on upstream, for providing build stuff of varying quality
which make using a $(SUFFIX) a bit more complicated. Some seem to be
even broken when using a $(EXE) suffix. It would be nice if these would
be cleaned up and a bit more homogenized before the 3.07 release.
ocamldoc, camlp4 and labltk seem to be the more problematic
sub-projects.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



Reply to: