From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA20220; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:26 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA20176 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mailrelay2.inwind.it (mailrelay2.inwind.it [212.141.54.102]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g4GIqP116184 for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:25 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dalamar.takhisis.org (62.98.126.174) by mailrelay2.inwind.it (6.5.015) id 3CAA382B01DAAE46 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:27 +0200 Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org (lordsoth.takhisis.org [192.168.1.119]) by dalamar.takhisis.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -7) with ESMTP id g4GIqL5w001097 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:25 +0200 Received: from lordsoth.takhisis.org (lordsoth.takhisis.org [192.168.1.119]) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-8) with ESMTP id g4GIqLlA017631 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:21 +0200 Received: (from zack@localhost) by lordsoth.takhisis.org (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-8) id g4GIqLIK017629 for caml-list@inria.fr; Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:21 +0200 Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:52:21 +0200 From: Stefano Zacchiroli To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems Message-ID: <20020516185221.GB17601@cs.unibo.it> Mail-Followup-To: caml-list@inria.fr References: <20020516071155.GA26745@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 02:24:49PM +0400, Vitaly Lugovsky wrote: > Sure. But distribution packagers, like me, can't wait for > such a decision. :( Indeed: with debian we choose a solution to the problem because no one proposed a standard policy. Now seems that a policy is just to be issued, well for us, we are only asking to take _one_, _definitely_ decision. > it will be very nice to have a possibility to split ocaml libraries > into runtime and development parts. Dynamic libraries belongs to the Already done in debian packages, for each package that ships a library that contain shared objects we have two packages: one named libfoo-ocaml and one named libfoo-ocaml-devel where 'foo' is the name of the library. The former contains the shared objects, the latter contains all the other developmente stuff. > runtime part, and, then, should be handled in an OS native way. > For Unices it's a libraries located in one big pile like /usr/lib/ Yes, but not /usr/lib itself, something like /usr/lib/ocaml (what a coincidence! :-) is better, anyway we have a polluted /usr/lib/ocaml directory so that is better to choose something different like /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs or similar. See FHS for more details. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners