On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 10:05:32PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Maybe it is this. I am busy right now, but a good solution to see if it > > is this would be to try building ocaml on a sparc box. > > I'll see in the next build.
I will try to build it by hand, that would be enough, we don't need a new upload (which may fail) to notice this. > >> > Because i don't like ocaml source. > >> > >> Ah, you don't like it. But it was created at the request of Ralf > >> who needed it as well. > > > > But does he still need it ? Which package was it anyway ? > > Better ask him directly. Ok, will do. > > And i don't like it, because it is huge and unwieldy, user get confused > > about it and try to build ocaml from it (and fail and fill bug reports). > > Then don't ship it unpacked. You can ship it as a tarball that would > be located in /usr/src. This doesn't change anything. > > And anyway, depending on the source is _not_ nice. Imagine a package > > which would depend on the gcc sources. > > GNAT, the Ada compiler needs the sources of gcc 2.8.1 to build. > It includes the whole sources of gcc 2.8.1 even if it is not part > of the same tarball. So you can either build-depend on sources or > include them, but it is the same this IMHO. And GNAT is currently orphaned, right ? > > Also there is no guarantee that the ocaml-sources would be configured > > the same way as when ocaml was built, which can lead to many problems. > > That is why shipping the tarball unpack is a good tradeoff. I don't understand, are you speaking the tarball of the whole ocaml build tree ? It will be huge. > For example, kernel patches need kernel source to compile. Well, sure, and kernel modules also. But i don't think that you can compare that to the ocaml situation, at least if you ask me, you cannot. I think it is ugly for an app to do so. > >> > > I already worked on this and it is far more complicated than > >> > > shipping some files. In my case, there are so many dependencies, > >> > > that it is simple to build against a self-compiled ocaml-source. > >> > > >> > This is something i need to discuss with your upstream i think, not > >> > you. > >> > >> There is no issue here. If you don't want to ship ocaml-source, you > >> can remove it. It is easy for anyone to build a dedicated > >> ocaml-source package from the ocaml tarball. > > > > :((( > > > > This would not solve the potention for misconfigurations. > > This would save _your_ problems, since you seems to want to get > rid of your problems with it. No, the problem is if i enable an option in the ocaml build, and you enable another (incompatible one) in the source needing package. > > And it is an issue which needs to be discussed with upstream. If the > > package can't get built without a part of the source, then either part > > of it need to be integrated with the sources (as Maxence patches, more > > to this this in a later mail) or maybe ocaml should ship more stuff. > > The point is that I need them currently, whatever will be changed > in future releases of cameleon. That is why i think it is important to speak with upstream about this. > > But the main point is that i like to ship the .cmi/.cmo/cmx/... and not > > the sources. > > Then remove ocaml-source, you don't have to tell us. Yes, but unless certain other debian developpers, i realize i may be wrong. Friendly, Sven Luther
