Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables
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.
Our build system knows about Inria naming conventions and
assumes they're used on the building platform. If Debian
changes those conventions it will just create problems.
OTOH if you add a new name, eg
ocamlopt.fastest --> either ocamlopt.opt or ocamlopt
you won't break anything .. and most build systems will ignore
the new name so it will be pointless.
The bottom line is .. you can't change anything.
The difference between ocamlopt.opt and ocamlopt for building
debian packages is irrelevant anyhow. Who cares if the
Debian autobuilder takes a few extra seconds to build something?
BTW: I agree the upstream naming conventions and general organisation
of the toolset sucks, but Inria probably agrees too but can't
change it until Ocaml 4.xx series for the same reasons Debian
can't: upwards compatibility.
--
John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net
Reply to: