Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables
On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 11:02 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 10:35:35AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-06-18 at 22:08 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> >
> > > So if someone step forward and
> > > is willing to implement the alternative mechanism which can make
> > > ocamlopt (and friends) point to either ocamlopt.byte or ocamlopt.native
> > > then please go ahead. I have no objection in shipping that stuff as
> > > Debian's ocaml 3.10.0.
> >
> > You can't do that, it will break things. In Felix at the moment,
> > ocamlopt.opt crashes handling dypgen, or, dygen crashes.
> > ocamlopt crashes with a Stack overflow message sometimes.
> >
> > It's quite possible ocamlopt.opt will fail where ocamlopt
> > will actually work.
>
> So ? You simply make a call to ocamlopt.byte instead of ocamlopt then,
> no ?
No, because only Debian uses those names... what you say would be
fine if Inria also followed the same convention. Fact is .. I don't
use any Debian Ocaml packages.. the two things I religiously don't
install with Debian are Ocaml and Felix (my package). I build Ocaml
myself, usually any beta/dev version floating around in CVS.
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
Reply to: