Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:So my question: If I'm packaging ocaml-calendar (a library) then should the parts which make the above possible go into the main package or ocaml-calendar-devel?We've already determined that OCaml is ... special.
Thanks for your prompt reply!
Here's the rule of thumb I've always used: In the traditional library/binary model: The main package is for libraries and components that another binary would need to execute. I can't _run_ foo without libbar.so.6 being present. The -devel package is for headers and components that are needed to build that binary. I can't _build_ foo without bar.h being present. So, in the OCaml universe, I'd say those .cma files fall into the main package, as I can't run _foo_ without those .cma files present.
In fact because OCaml binaries are statically linked to OCaml libraries foo doesn't require anything to run.
The *.cma file is a bit more like a *.a file, but as ever the parallels aren't precise.
However by the sounds of it, it seems that everything should go in -devel. Is it a problem if the main package is completely empty?
Note that I know absolutely NOTHING about OCaml besides what you've told me.
I've been programming in OCaml nearly exclusively for 4 years, and even _I_ don't know all the ins and outs of the various files used. Mostly this stuff just happens. I had to 'strace' the toplevel running to see which files it needed.
Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
