On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:06:56AM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> So, some facts.
Thanks a lot for this summary.
Based on this, I'd say that the most straightforward choices look like:
- calling the binary package(s) containing the OCaml cross-compiler can
be obtained from the current names by pre-pending "mingw32-", giving
package names like "mingw32-ocaml".
in fact, given the peculiarity of needs of the cross compiler, I'd
say that we can refrain from splitting all "ocaml-*" packages as we
do for the OCaml legacy compiler, but this has pros/cons
- pros: reduce archive clutter, we can have just one "mingw32-ocaml"
package containing everything. Also, I presume most of the split we
currently has will be pointless anyhow, I doubt there is X11 support
in the cross compiler, am I wrong?
- cons: the packaging will be different and you won't be able to reuse
a lot of debian/*, starting from control, but you need anyhow to
have different package names. Right now I can't imagine how much
practically you'll be able to reuse anyhow, you should probably
balance that with the simplicity of having a single binary package.
you will also probably need findlib quite soon, that should probably
be called "mingw32-ocaml-findlib" and so on.
- the library path you propose (/usr/lib/mingw32-ocaml) looks reasonable
to me
> Yes, I agree that building 32-bit modules is not relevant. However, a
> custom version of ocamlfind should be interesting. It is also very
> easy since it only involves a set of conf files if I remember
> well... It may be in a main mingw32-ocaml package, then...
I'd prefer to have a different package so that we keep the ability of
updating them independently.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature