On 17-04-2007, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:04:20AM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: >> Cameleon package build-depends on it, a long time ago. I think it is no >> more needed (since ocaml-compiler-libs should do almost what is >> needed... but i am working on getting a more up-to-date list of library >> required). > > Ok. > >> BTW, i am wondering why the ocaml-compiler-libs tree structure was flat >> (one dir or something like that). Since all the files are coming from >> different dir, it should be better to imitate the tree structure of the >> ocaml-source. This will have some nice side effect, like being able to >> make some package compile against ocaml-compiler-libs, just as if it was >> a fresh ocaml build source... > > Uh? What do you mean? The OCaml module namespace is flat notwithstanding > how you shape the directory structure containing ocaml objects. Also, if > the appropriate META is available one doesn't have to care about -I > flags. I *guess* the choice of not structuring in dirs is that the dir > names are rather "common" (like "typing") and open the flank to > filesystem clashes. >
I am talking about this rather "common" names (like "typing"). If i want to build the graphical toplevel of Cameleon, i need a set of .cmo from this directory and it uses "-I $(OCAML_SRC)/typing/". That is the reason why if i can only replace OCAML_SRC it will be great. I don't see the "filesystem clashes": I was proposing to use /usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.2/compiler-libs/ as OCAML_SRC... (this only simulate that a certain set of library are like in an OCaml build tree). Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
