On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:02:01PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Hi Richard, > in Debian we are almost ready to upload an official version of the > ocaml 3.10.0 packaging [1], I know from the caml mailing list that > you're working on similar stuff for red hat derivatives. > > One of our remaining concern is that the ocaml-nox package is more than > 100 Mb of installed size. About 70 Mb of that are devoted to camlp4 > executables and libraries, hence we are considering splitting that to a > separate package. > > Have you had similar concerns? If so, which kind of splitting you > decided to perform? I'll be glad to share opinions with you guys on > that! We're actually distributing camlp4 as a separate package. To be honest I hadn't looked at the sizes until now: 5.7M ocaml-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 22M ocaml-camlp4-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 7.1M ocaml-camlp4-devel-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 3.6M ocaml-debuginfo-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 2.1M ocaml-docs-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 87K ocaml-emacs-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 362K ocaml-findlib-1.1.2pl1-5.x86_64.rpm 130K ocaml-findlib-devel-1.1.2pl1-5.x86_64.rpm 388K ocaml-labltk-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 1.8M ocaml-labltk-devel-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 2.4M ocaml-ocamldoc-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 1.5M ocaml-runtime-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 77K ocaml-source-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm 20K ocaml-x11-3.10.0-2.x86_64.rpm Those sizes are, of course, compressed. camlp4 is pretty huge, isn't it. > PS similarly, I know you prepared the red hat derivatives guidelines for > packaging OCaml stuff and that you started from our policy. Feel free to > post suggestions for / improvements to our policy to our mailing list. > > [1] if you're interested in what we are doing you can find it at: > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/ocaml/branches/ocaml-3.10.0/?rev=0&sc=0 I'm very much following Debian's policy and packages to see what you've done and how you've done it. Fedora policy: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/OCaml Despite the name, this has just been approved. You might be particularly interested in the very strict versioning scheme that Fedora adopted. For example: $ rpm -q --requires ocaml-calendar [...] ocaml(Array) = aa8e3cd5824f9bb40b93fcd38d0c95b5 ocaml(Buffer) = f6cef633ea14963b84b79c4095c63dc3 ocaml(Format) = 35fe566f7a37d8991a5c822bd1463949 ocaml(Lazy) = 8a4b5e7f0bdc6316df9264fd73cde981 ocaml(List) = da1ce9168f0408ff26158af757456948 ocaml(Pervasives) = 8ba3d1faa24d659525c9025f41fd0c57 ocaml(Str) = 56bb7ee61b2da83d42394686e3558fe4 ocaml(String) = 2c162ab314b2f0a2cfd22d471b2e21ab ocaml(Unix) = 9a46a8db115947409e54686ada118599 ocaml = 3.10.0-2 And I do have a question actually ... Why does Debian put version numbers into the paths (eg. /usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.3/...)? In Fedora we don't do this. The advantage of putting version numbers in there is it would allow us to install multiple versions at the same time, but we'd have to go all the way down to the -release level to make this realistic, _and_ we'd have to version everything in /usr/bin as well. I'm wondering if Debian have some deep insight that I'm missing. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
