Re: ocaml-sha
Re,
I see from fedora's spec that it seems that the upstream Makefile works as is
[1]. So I guess this rpm also contains sha{1,256,512}.{cma,cmxa} too.
> > Which seems to result that in Debian this lib is compiled as a
> > single sha.cma / sha.cmxa file (with sha{1,256,512}.cmi per
> > modules). (and the cmd-line progs are not compiled but probably the
> > users won't care this)
>
> Yes. I should probably also include the test programs in an examples
> subdirectory. And I suppose one could make a case for unbundling
> Sha1, Sha256, etc. into separate libraries, but nobody has requested
> that yet.
I think people that could be disturb by such a simple issue are some beginners
who won't know how to do a bug report.
> > First do I have understood rigth what the debian package does ?
> > (if not sorry for the noise)
> >
> > If yes, what would you recommand me to do for mandriva ?
> > - replicate the debian build for unification (or because it's a better
> > build), or use the patched upstream makefile to respect the upstream
> > build ?
>
> I think you should do what I should have done but didn't: patch the
> upstream Makefile, and send Vincent your patch, in case he can
> incorporate it in the next release.
I have sent yesterday the same patch than in the first email of this thread.
But maybe I should have wait and double check, because today I see that the
Makefile is not patched in fedora [1] (maybe there is something distro
dependent).
> Also, you might want to add support for ocamldoc generation (that's
> also built-in with OCamlMakefile) to your patch.
Yes, what I could do is to use your alternate Makefile as Makefile.alt
and use it only for: make doc -f Makefile.alt
[1] :
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ocaml-gsl/ocaml-gsl.spec?revision=1.4&view=markup
--
Cheers
Reply to: