On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 02:06:56AM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote: > So, some facts.
Thanks a lot for this summary. Based on this, I'd say that the most straightforward choices look like: - calling the binary package(s) containing the OCaml cross-compiler can be obtained from the current names by pre-pending "mingw32-", giving package names like "mingw32-ocaml". in fact, given the peculiarity of needs of the cross compiler, I'd say that we can refrain from splitting all "ocaml-*" packages as we do for the OCaml legacy compiler, but this has pros/cons - pros: reduce archive clutter, we can have just one "mingw32-ocaml" package containing everything. Also, I presume most of the split we currently has will be pointless anyhow, I doubt there is X11 support in the cross compiler, am I wrong? - cons: the packaging will be different and you won't be able to reuse a lot of debian/*, starting from control, but you need anyhow to have different package names. Right now I can't imagine how much practically you'll be able to reuse anyhow, you should probably balance that with the simplicity of having a single binary package. you will also probably need findlib quite soon, that should probably be called "mingw32-ocaml-findlib" and so on. - the library path you propose (/usr/lib/mingw32-ocaml) looks reasonable to me > Yes, I agree that building 32-bit modules is not relevant. However, a > custom version of ocamlfind should be interesting. It is also very > easy since it only involves a set of conf files if I remember > well... It may be in a main mingw32-ocaml package, then... I'd prefer to have a different package so that we keep the ability of updating them independently. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature