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

Re: removal of the ocaml-source binary package

On 17-04-2007, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:04:20AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> Cameleon package build-depends on it, a long time ago. I think it is no
>> more needed (since ocaml-compiler-libs should do almost what is
>> needed... but i am working on getting a more up-to-date list of library
>> required).
> Ok.
>> BTW, i am wondering why the ocaml-compiler-libs tree structure was flat 
>> (one dir or something like that). Since all the files are coming from
>> different dir, it should be better to imitate the tree structure of the
>> ocaml-source. This will have some nice side effect, like being able to
>> make some package compile against ocaml-compiler-libs, just as if it was
>> a fresh ocaml build source...
> Uh? What do you mean? The OCaml module namespace is flat notwithstanding
> how you shape the directory structure containing ocaml objects. Also, if
> the appropriate META is available one doesn't have to care about -I
> flags.  I *guess* the choice of not structuring in dirs is that the dir
> names are rather "common" (like "typing") and open the flank to
> filesystem clashes.

I am talking about this rather "common" names (like "typing"). If i want
to build the graphical toplevel of Cameleon, i need a set of .cmo from
this directory and it uses "-I $(OCAML_SRC)/typing/". That is the reason
why if i can only replace OCAML_SRC it will be great. I don't see the
"filesystem clashes": I was proposing to use
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/compiler-libs/ as OCAML_SRC... (this only simulate
that a certain set of library are like in an OCaml build tree).

Sylvain Le Gall

Reply to: