From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q296eaEk025135 for ; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:40:36 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvUFAF+lWU+K54gDgWdsb2JhbABDgwmBVlasY4MSIgEBFiYnggsBBQwXVQEQCQIaAgUWCwICCQMCAQIBRQYNAQcCiAYEqB2Rb4EvjhGBFgSVSIVmjRg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,555,1325458800"; d="scan'208";a="135148397" Received: from rouge.crans.org ([138.231.136.3]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 09 Mar 2012 07:40:31 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost.crans.org [127.0.0.1]) by rouge.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E73C84B3; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:40:31 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at crans.org Received: from rouge.crans.org ([10.231.136.3]) by localhost (rouge.crans.org [10.231.136.3]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id uTWtc0QqE2Ux; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:40:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.39.1] (fbx.up7.fr [81.56.96.177]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rouge.crans.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CEB558074; Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:40:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F59A5DE.6010908@glondu.net> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:40:30 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?U3TDqXBoYW5lIEdsb25kdQ==?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111114 Icedove/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsOpbWllIERpbWlubw==?= CC: =?UTF-8?B?RGFuaWVsIELDvG56bGk=?= , caml-list References: <1991A512A37E49ACA5AAD30A38D628BF@erratique.ch> <20120308170947.4847d3b3@caladan.esterel-technologies.com> In-Reply-To: <20120308170947.4847d3b3@caladan.esterel-technologies.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 OpenPGP: id=49881AD3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id q296eaEk025135 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] oasis packaging questions Le 08/03/2012 17:09, Jérémie Dimino a écrit : > Note that in general it is better to install a cma/cmxa, even if your > library has only one module. The reason is that when building an > executable, cmo/cmx files passed on the command line are always linked, > while unused units of cma/cmxa files are not (unless you specify > -linkall). Moreover, in case of bindings, cma/cmxa can contain flags for the linker so that the end user doesn't have to specify them. Cheers, -- Stéphane