On 20-01-2008, Stéphane Glondu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > If I understand the Debian OCaml Packaging Policy correctly, .cma files > should be in libxxx-ocaml-dev binary packages. Has this choice been > taken with dynamic loading in mind? > > Ocsigen may, and does with its default configuration and in the most > useful cases, dynamically load nums.cma, sqlite3.cma, and cryptokit.cma, > the last two being in *-dev packages. However, I think this is > confusing: is it ok for an executable to depend on *-dev packages at > runtime? > > When OCaml with native dynamic loading is realeased, where so-called > "plugins" (.cmxs, I am not talking about .cmx files!) should be put? > libxxx-ocaml or libxxx-ocaml-dev? The second choice would be > meaningless, since .cmxs are only meant to be dynamically loaded. And > the first choice would be inconsistent with the current choice for .cma > files. > > Therefore, I think .cma files should be put in libxxx-ocaml binary > packages instead, or at least this possibility should be allowed and > explicitly mentioned in the policy. >
This fall in the same case as the .cmo used for camlp4 extension. I think that we should end up in the same situation as C: put everything in libxxx-ocaml and only doc/interfaces (cmi/mli)/things that could not be dynamically loaded (cmx) in libxxx-ocaml-dev. For now, there were only a few packages using dynamic linking (cameleon, camlp4/ocamldoc extension AFAIK). However this decision generates a deep impact on every ocaml packages, so i think, we should go step by step until making it mandatory. Allowing it "explicitly" is a good first step. The policy is in the OCaml package, i think you can edit this section if you want. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
