Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:In fact because OCaml binaries are statically linked to OCaml libraries foo doesn't require anything to run.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.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.
Of course I'd completely forgotten about OCaml scripts ... They're not used very often, but they are an argument for putting the *.cma and *.cmi files into the main package.
Here's an example of an OCaml script, albeit one which in this case doesn't use any external libraries (but in general they can do):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_CAML#Birthday_paradox
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.
After playing around with strace, I'm pretty sure that it's safe just to put the *.cma, *.cmi and *.so files (if present) into the main package, to get the toplevel and scripts working.
That is what I did in these spec files: http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-extlib.spec [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240655] http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-calendar.spec [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240571] http://annexia.org/tmp/ocaml-pcre.spec [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=240652] 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
