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 WAA02639; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:57:58 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id WAA02620 for caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 22:57:58 +0200 (MET DST) 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 RAA30131 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:41:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from isis.u-strasbg.fr (isis.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.200.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g5DFfI928240; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:41:18 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.44.193]) by isis.u-strasbg.fr (8.12.3/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id g5DFfIpU000128 ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:41:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lambda.u-strasbg.fr (lambda.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.90.63]) by dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA12655; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:42:43 +0200 Received: from luther by lambda.u-strasbg.fr with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17IWrJ-0007Av-00; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:50:01 +0200 Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:50:01 +0200 To: Xavier Leroy Cc: Sven , Vitaly Lugovsky , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems Message-ID: <20020613155001.GA27493@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> References: <20020430111657.A18782@pauillac.inria.fr> <20020430200405.A16880@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <20020514105452.B11894@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020514105452.B11894@pauillac.inria.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Sven Luther Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 10:54:52AM +0200, Xavier Leroy wrote: > So, to summarize, I strongly suggest the following approach for RPMs > or Debian packages: > - The main Caml package can add one or two lines to ld.conf, > e.g. /var/lib/ocaml/shlibs (for libraries installed by other packages) > and /usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs (for local stuff) > - Packages for additional Caml libraries install their shared libraries > in /var/lib/ocaml/shlibs, either directly or via a symlink. Xavier, ... I am going to prepare a new ocaml debian package which will support what you suggest, but still be compatible with the current way of doing things (using the external ocaml-ldconf program). What i will do is have the ocaml-base package (which contains the minimum needed to run bytecode programs only, namely ocamlrun and the dll.so) add /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs for stub libraries provided by a debian package, and /usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs for stub libraries provided by third party libraries. Debian packaged library will move the dll.so into these directories, and everything will be fine, but older packages or packages with lazy maintainers will still be able to use ocaml-ldconf. Third parties libraries (that is, non debian packaged ones) which use findlib will know about this scheme, and use the debian package version of findlib to install stuff in the proper place (/usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs). Third party libraries which do not use findlib, either don't know about dll.so, and in this case there is no problem, or try to install them either in /usr/lib/ocaml (which is bad) or add a file by hand into /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf. In this later case, i will try to prevent this from happening, and make people aware that this is not the correct way of doing this (if we agree on that, that is). But there are two points i much would like a consensus being attained on : 1) What will be the exact name of these directories ? It would be a good idea, i think at least, if we choose the same name for all installations of ocaml, and not everyone choosing it's own directory. (or else we could have a ocaml option similar to -where which would give a pointer to these directories ? and have the choice of the directory highly configurable, maybe a -where_stub or something such ?) Actually i have the proposition of "shlibs" from you, and "libexec" from Gerd and the findlib people. and then i feel myself "stublibs" should be a nice name too, especially since it is just the sub libraries we are speaking about, and not the .cma and other such ocaml libraries. 2) I think it would be nice to distinguish two such directories, /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs for distribution native libraries (the packaged ones that follow the rule), and /usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs for hand installed packages. What precedence should we take for them by default ? And should these two dirs be hardcoded into the ocaml suite, (as are /usr/lib and /lib into the C ld.so) ? Friendly, Sven Luther ------------------- 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