On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:53:43PM +0100, J�r�me Marant wrote: > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Does version 3.04-2 of the runtime package contain the libraries that > > > are used by the runtime system? bc packages loose a lot of their > > > potential advantages when a user needs to install the ocaml development > > > package to run them. > > > > I have ready 4 packages, ocaml, ocaml-doc, lablgl and lablgtk. > > > > In the case of libraries, i have a full package and a runtime package with > > oinly the dlls, in the same manner as the ocaml-base package. > > I'm not in favor of splitting libraries into full package and runtime. > This will bloat the archive with multiple packages and the benefits > of this are not worth the split IMO (this is ok for ocaml itself > however).
Could you explain a bit more ? It is the same split that the one between libxxx and libxxx-dev, maybe we should name them as such, maybe it is even policy, not sure though. The -runtime is the shared libraries, while the normal name is the developpment package. Imagine i do a apt frontend with lablgtk, and distribute it as architecture independent bytecode package. I would need only the 4 small dlls of the lablgtk-runtime and ocaml-base, not the big whole of them. If we don't split these packages like that, there is not really a point into splitting ocaml-base away too. Anyway, let's discuss about this more, it can still be changed if things are better in some other way. But notice, this is _not_ the bytecode/nativecode split i was advocating some time ago, just the splitting of the shared libraries needed by bytecode executable. Friendly, Sven Luther > > -- > J�r�me Marant > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
