Re: Cameleon build failures

[Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>]

On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 11:01:56PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> 
> >> I'll see in the next build.
> >
> > I will try to build it by hand, that would be enough, we don't need a
> > new upload (which may fail) to notice this.
> 
> I've just uploaded a fix.

BTW, what was the fix ?

> >> Then don't ship it unpacked. You can ship it as a tarball that would
> >> be located in /usr/src.
> >
> > This doesn't change anything.
> 
> What's the problem, again?
> >
> > I don't understand, are you speaking the tarball of the whole ocaml
> > build tree ? It will be huge.
> 
> The ocaml tarball. Not that huge, 2.5 Megs and arch:all, this is
> pretty small.

That you rebuild the ocaml tree, without guarantee that it is using the
same configuration as i use for building ocaml, which may lead to
problems.

> >> For example, kernel patches need kernel source to compile.
> >
> > Well, sure, and kernel modules also. But i don't think that you can
> > compare that to the ocaml situation, at least if you ask me, you cannot.
> >
> > I think it is ugly for an app to do so.
> 
> Alright, do what you want. I have enough. Bye.

Hey, take it cool, i never said i will do it, at least anytime soon. I
personally don't like the idea of an ocaml-source package, it is not ok
in my opinion for an app/library/whatever using ocaml to depend on the
ocaml source, since :

  1) If it is really needed, we should ship it in the ocaml package.

  2) If it is a patch, we can apply it, even if Xavier don't like it. It
     may cause problems though, and this needs to be studied well.

  3) Shipping the whole sources is a waste, if only a few files are
     needed.

Friendly,

Sven Luther