Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I think Kevin's comment is meant more towards the way the language
> packages itself versus the rpm packaging of the language. Going from
> Kevin's comments on languages over the years, a 'good' language should
> not require such sort of rebuilding.
The OCaml language is to blame for a lot of issues. Still, there are also
issues I see in the RPM packaging (now that I know what those .cm* files
actually are), where it does not conform to best practices and/or to the
general packaging guidelines (which can be overridden by language-specific
ones, sure, but those exceptions are what I have a problem with):
* The main packages of libraries contain files that are only used for static
linking (.cma files, i.e., "metadata for bytecode static linking" as
Richard explained). Those main packages should actually contain only
shared libraries and data files needed at runtime.
* No shared libraries (.so/.cmxs) are shipped for most libraries.
* Executables are not linked against those that are shipped.
That said, I agree that the Go and Rust packaging is worse.
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
