From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F19ABC0A for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:56:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp114.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com (smtp114.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.198.213]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id l138uZFu025044 for ; Sat, 3 Feb 2007 09:56:37 +0100 Received: (qmail 83350 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2007 08:56:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.100?) (rftp@pacbell.net@69.230.187.64 with plain) by smtp114.sbc.mail.mud.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2007 08:56:34 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: g_9vGZcVM1mmgBKBfkqVxIQeUXk0o_VplmK3Twt.HlCBgMmxNLD34DeDesMTkr8_ijfngp3ky.OILr7PJjqCgb_jYXJhCqApJYaj.tILV_STgO.MbZ5J4QssuUicOuwn.r3wcG41k7eJTGHtOZbKeVoSQaulcdtGbz4jZlmy_xgkYnTlnQUCOE573X3a Message-ID: <45C44E3C.4070001@rftp.com> Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 00:56:28 -0800 From: Robert Roessler User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9a2pre) Gecko/20070201 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 SeaMonkey/1.5a MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Caml List Subject: Re: [Caml-list] ocamlc vs ocamlc.opt? References: <45C11557.10704@rftp.com> <45C3D599.9080101@metaprl.org> In-Reply-To: <45C3D599.9080101@metaprl.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 45C44E43.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail . ensmp . fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocamlc:01 ocamlc:01 bytecode:01 findlib:01 ocamlfind:01 lablgtk:01 -thread:01 threads:01 lablgtk:01 gtkinit:01 cmo:01 usr:01 lib:01 ocaml:01 stublibs:01 Aleksey Nogin wrote: > On 31.01.2007 14:16, Robert Roessler wrote: > >> I just ran into a problem where building a bytecode executable failed >> with findlib ("ocamlfind ocamlc ...") but the equivalent non-findlib >> command worked. Then I saw that I could force the same error message >> in my non-findlib build by just matching findlib's ocamlc.opt, while I >> had used ocamlc. >> >> The command line is: >> ocamlc -o bait -I +lablgtk2 -I +lablscintilla -thread threads.cma >> lablgtk.cma gtkInit.cmo scintilla.cma bait.ml >> >> which works fine. Changing ocamlc to ocamlc.opt yields: >> Error on dynamically loaded library: >> /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs/dlllablscintilla.so: undefined symbol: >> caml_names_of_builtin_cprim >> >> This is on FC6, with a Yum-installed OCaml 3.09.3 package. Both of >> the versions of the compiler identify themselves as 3.09.3 with the >> same standard library location, and both were built on Dec 2 of 2006. >> > It's possible that there was some problem with how it was compiled. Feel > free to try my RPM from > http://rpm.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fc6/ocaml-3.09.3-1.rhfc6.i386.html (you > should be able to use http://rpmbin.nogin.org/MetaPRL/fedora-6/ in yum, > with http://rpmbin.nogin.org/GPG-PUBKEY.txt key, if you prefer > installing via yum). Thanks - that is actually what I have been working on doing (I was trying to get this far so I had something to reply to Olivier's and now your suggestion)... ;) Your package is the "gold standard" for Linux builds of OCaml, AFAICT. But things are not quite as smooth as they could be - since Zod comes with all this Yum[my goodness], I was trying to stick with it... which is why I had it go ahead and install the "3.09.3" packages it said it had in its repo, along with the offered lablgtk (I removed both of these). Next I had difficulties with the key file you suggest, when I tried to do an "rpm --install" with the key file... rpm would just appear to hang with the key file as an argument after the --install. So I just said (^*%^^%%^ and did an rpm -iv with your rpm sitting around locally, which worked fine. Of course, Yum now shows it as being installed, but is unable to reinstall lablgtk because it says that it is unable to satisfy the "3.09.3" requirement. Sigh. So much for the brave new world of automated package management. I will just go ahead now and do a source build of lablgtk, which I know to be easy (at least on Windows). ;) Robert Roessler roessler@rftp.com http://www.rftp.com