On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 06:45:54PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 04:56:58PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > On the other hand, we can surely state in the ocaml packaging policy to > > > build, where possible and useful (i.e. not cpu bound programs), > > > architecture independent ocaml based _programs_, this will be surely an > > > improvement for the user and for the spreading of ocaml programs. > > > > Yes, and even go beyond that, every ocaml program should be built as a > > split binary package, where the package is built in bytecode, and a > > -native or something version is also built on the archs supporting > > native code compilation, and would divert the executable from the > > bytecode version or something. > > Uhm, this seems to me too overkilling. I will consider splitting the > -native package only for programs that really are cpu bound (e.g. surely > I don't need a ledit-native packag e :-) so the final choice is left to > the maintainer.
Yes, sure, but ledit makes for a nice experimentation place. > Anyway we may mention something like that on the policy, just to let the > maintainer think about it. Yes, the nice way of having a bytecode only package, is that it will not need rebuild on all the arches not supporting the native code compiler. > > > Regarding the additional .debs that the user have to download (mainly > > > the additional 'ocaml-base' package, IMO this is not a problem because > > > it have to be downloaded only once and promote future reusability. > > > > Yes, but it may also be lablgtk, i think. > > Ok, but if you ship a program statically linked with lablgtk, you, in > some way, have donwloaded a lot of stuff from lablgtk anyway ... :))) And it cannot be stripped. Friendly, Sven Luther
