On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 05:31:47PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > 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. > > I don't see what you mean. > Those libs are not dlls and are only used by cameleon at compile > time. So cameleon don't need them at run time.
Well, they are C stub libraries, right, and if we would do them the arch independant way, they could be put into a single dll.so ? If not, i don't understand what you are speaking about. > > 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. > > Why exactly? Well, i suppose this depends on the response to the above. > > 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. > > I think I'll have to make a decision about this otherwise I'll > never upload cameleon :p :))) Friendly, Sven Luther
