On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > 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. > You have an interesting case here. Like spot, I lean towards the *.cma files being available from the main (non-devel) package as the toplevel and interpreted OCaml scripts won't run without them. They are loadable modules in this sense. The fact that they are also included statically in compiled OCaml programs seems to be a red herring for this decision but I'm sure their dual nature will raise other interesting issues later. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
