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 OAA22244; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:57:46 +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 OAA21798 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:57:45 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g5ICvXP13340; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:57:33 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id OAA21876; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:57:33 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:57:33 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Sven Luther Cc: Sven , Vitaly Lugovsky , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems Message-ID: <20020618145733.A21463@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <20020430111657.A18782@pauillac.inria.fr> <20020430200405.A16880@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> <20020514105452.B11894@pauillac.inria.fr> <20020613155001.GA27493@lambda.u-strasbg.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20020613155001.GA27493@lambda.u-strasbg.fr>; from luther@lambda.u-strasbg.fr on Thu, Jun 13, 2002 at 05:50:01PM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > 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). > [description omitted] Looks good. > 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. My proposal for "shlibs" was just for the sake of example, and isn't very descriptive. I like "stublibs" or "libexec" better, actually. > 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. Keep in mind that there is only one OCaml standard library directory. So, non-packaged libraries tend to install in `ocamlc -where`/LIBNAME, and would put their DLLs in `ocamlc -where`/stublibs. Hence, I'm not sure the second directory /usr/local/lib/ocaml/stublibs would be used a lot. But it doesn't hurt. On a related issue, to facilitate the transition from the current scheme, it might be worth adding /usr/lib/ocaml as a third directory, at least for the next two releases or so. > And should these two dirs be hardcoded into the ocaml suite, (as are > /usr/lib and /lib into the C ld.so) ? I don't think so. The hardcoding in ld.so seems to come from a desire to facilitate disaster recovery: even if the ld.so cache or configuration files get accidentally wiped, a reasonable number of dynamically-linked utility programs still run. There is less to worry about wiping OCaml's ld.conf file. - Xavier Leroy ------------------- 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