On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 11:33:22AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:15:25PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > > > Am I missing something? > > < snipped a lot of useful information > > > Ok, thanks for the hints. > > Anyway I was reasoning mainly about libraries (even if I forget to > mention it, sorry). > Libraries which ships .so can't be arch: all, but have to be > architecture dependent, this was may point.
Yes, but the reason to build the .so is so programs can be made arch: all, something upstream is always afraid to do, since they have not the control we have on the libraries, they prefer shipping the programs with all the stuff included. > 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. > 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. > I'm really in favour of trading off one-package download overhead with > code sharing between many packages, this is also the philosophy behind > system shared objects. Yes, as you may have seen, i have already uploaded a arch: all ledit package (1.10-6). Friendly, Sven Luther
