On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:12:31AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:41:40AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > I don't know really. For the cases I mentioned, upstream > > thinks it is not worth shiping them separately. > > This is enough IMO, you can then safely embed libraries in the program > package and have it arch: any. > > > For example, you used to package zoggy with its library within. > > Perhaps you could explain your logic here, so we can understand > > what to do. > > Exactly the same :-) > The libraries was small and special purpose enough not to ship it as a > standalone package.
And we were not speaking about byte/antive code split back then ? Tell me if i am wrong, but i have the impression that there are a few such libraries, which are used by 3 or more cameleon programs. Ideally, and maybe upstream can be convinced to do that, these libraries could be put together in a small library packages, libcamaleon-support-ocaml or something such. The problem is a bit different with advi, where there is only one such library (and really, the only reason i did not separate it, was that i was not able to fix the build process to do so), but here we have at least 3 such dll.so, which could well be merged in one common dll.so common to all cameleon packages. Anyway, i would like to have feedback from upstream about that, and from you two, since i have no idea of what these library are and do. Friendly, Sven Luther
