Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> OCaml library code can in principle be dynamically linked, eg:
>
> $ rpm -ql ocaml-extlib | grep cmxs
> /usr/lib64/ocaml/extlib/extLib.cmxs
> $ file /usr/lib64/ocaml/extlib/extLib.cmxs
> /usr/lib64/ocaml/extlib/extLib.cmxs: ELF 64-bit LSB shared object, x86-64,
> version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked,
> BuildID[sha1]=5647dd0137ce0a5302c8040301b26a109d771948, with debug_info,
> not stripped
>
> but upstream doesn't make it possible to ship OCaml binaries this way,
> (they would still require rebuilding on every library update) and so
> we only ship the DLLs not fully dynamically linked OCaml binaries
> (except for the C code).
Ah?
So what sits in the main packages of libraries (e.g., in ocaml-facile as
opposed to ocaml-facile-devel) then? Don't only shared libraries belong in
the main package?
So I take back my comment that the OCaml stack is properly packaged. ;-)
That sounds like almost as much of a mess as Go and Rust then.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
