> Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Okay, >>> >>> The proposal I mailed to the list yesterday is now available here: >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml >>> >> Thanks Hans! > > Please keep in mind I'm not an ocaml expert, I just did some reading on it > as I needed to know something about it todo reviews. > >> I have a question about bytecode/native code. Should the guidelines >> specify that module packages build both bytecode and native code? As a >> precedent, a java library will install a native code version to >> %{_libdir}/libfoo-1.0.so and byte code to /usr/share/java/foo-1.0.jar. >> > > Thats not how ocaml handles things. Ocaml code gets compiled to bytecode > objects, native<->ocaml glue code gets compiled to native objects. > > Then when compiling an application / program, you can compile it in 2 > ways: > 1) to a bytecode program which will require the ocaml runtime and the .so > versions of any native code from used modules/libs. All bytecode > objects > from used modules will get staticly liked in. > > This reminds me, since ocaml will dlopen the .so files with native > code of > used modules, an application compiled this way should have Requires: > for all used modules of which native parts are used. > > 2) To native code, in this case the bytecode parts of used modules get > converted to native code and any native objects which are part of > modules > get staticly linked in, resulting in a native binary which is > independent of > any ocaml modules (but which will still depend upon any be dynamicly > linked > against any normal native libraries used by modules, like libjpeg) > > >> I also wonder if we want to specify that ocaml programs should be >> compiled to native code. >> > > According to Debian's guidelines this has both advantages and > disadvantages, so > its probably best to use upstream's default behaviour. > > Also worth noticing is that native compilation is not available on all > platforms. Luckily it is available for all platforms which are part of > Fedora. > > Regards, > > Hans > > > p.s. > > What do you think about the Naming part of the proposal? I'm currently > doing an > ocaml related review which mainly needs a "decision" on the naming part of > the > proposal. I think this is not very controversial, so if atleast an > agreement > could be reached on this, then said review can move forward. I'm actually happy with it, I'm going to change the name in the review shortly. > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
