Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 08, 2002 at 02:34:45AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> > Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > Upstream choose to use rpath, and when i asked on d-m, a huge flameware
> > > about the usage of rpath followed, which didn't give me a conclusive
> > > answer in any direction. Upstream mostly ignored my question (well they
> > > responded, but they like rpath).
> >
> > The problem with rpath, as far as I gathered from various falmes, is
> > that you depend on the library your build with. Slight changes of the
> > libraries make the binary unusable, like moving the library or version
> > changes. Without rpath it still find the library.
>
> Yes, do you want to argue with upstream ?
No, just fix the debian package of ocaml.
> > > > 2. mldonkey uses ocamlopt.opt but ocamlopt works as well. Which of the
> > > > two should I use? Should I build-depend on eigther or conflict with
> > > > one?
> > >
> > > You should build depend on ocaml-best-compilers, and do a test for the
> > > presence of ocamlopt.opt before using it.
> > >
> > > Make sure you have a fallback to use bytecode (ocamlc) if ocamlopt is
> > > not present, or you will get _plenty_ of bug report, as your package
> > > will _not_ build on m68k, hppa, mips, mipsel and maybe some other i am
> > > missing.
> >
> > When I do "make byte" I still get an elf binary. Is there a way to
> > make a binary-all ocaml program? Since its bytecode it seems like a
> > big waste to have the same bytecode for every arch.
>
> Remove the -custom option.
Great. I will build a bytecode binary-all and a optimised with
arch=i386,alpha,...<archs that have ocamlopt>.
MfG
Goswin
