From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB0CEBC40 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:52:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9T0qAUU001846 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:52:10 +0200 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA15556 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:52:09 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.1]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9T0q7AM029388 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:52:08 +0200 Received: from localhost (suiren.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp [130.54.16.25]) by kurims.kurims.kyoto-u.ac.jp (8.9.3p2-20030924/3.7W) with ESMTP id JAA15313; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:51:57 +0900 (JST) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 09:51:57 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <20041029.095157.71083228.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> To: mgushee@havenrock.com Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Packaging OCaml for Linux From: Jacques Garrigue In-Reply-To: <20041028204047.GB5402@swordfish> References: <20041028204047.GB5402@swordfish> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.0.64 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4181943A.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41819437.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 labltk:01 labltk:01 end-up:01 gpl:01 gotchas:01 ...:98 ...:98 partial:01 jacques:01 jacques:01 python:02 garrigue:03 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: From: Matt Gushee > I recently decided to try a new Linux distribution--Arch--and > quickly became an enthusiastic convert. Now, I've noticed that there is > no OCaml package for Arch Linux, and I would like to provide one. I'd > like to hear the community's opinion on a couple of questions: > > 1) Which OCaml distribution should be the basis for the Linux package: > the basic distribution from INRIA, or GODI? Why do you think so? GODI is probably difficult to make into a package: it is a package manager itself. On the other hand, if you provide GODI, then you don't need to package anything else. That's the goal: not having to repackage all ocaml libraries for every platform. > 2) What about LablTk? Should it be included, excluded? Should I break it > into a separate package, as is often done with Python/Tkinter? Is > that even possible with OCaml? You should be aware that ocamlbrowser (which is included in the distribution) depends on LablTk. So if you remove labltk from the package, default users will not get it. I don't know how packaging works on Arch Linux. With FreeBSD ports, you can set options when building packages, so that you only remove labltk if you don't have X11, or your don't want Tcl/Tk on your hard-disk. (Actually, I have a problem with the minimalistic approach to packaging on Linux. You often end-up having libraries installed with partial configurations (less than your system supports) and without headers. And then you must go around looking for the missing bits. Gosh, hard-disks are not that small...) > 3) Is there anything in the OCaml license that creates problems for a > Linux distribution package? The QPL is open-source certified, so this should be OK, but maybe some distributions only accept the GPL... > 4) Any other "gotchas" I should be aware of? Once you've started packaging, it must be maintained. OCaml releases often happen in summer... Jacques Garrigue