Browse thread
[Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems: findlib helps!
-
Gerd Stolpmann
-
Blair Zajac
- Gerd Stolpmann
- Stefano Zacchiroli
-
Blair Zajac
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Gerd Stolpmann <info@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems: findlib helps! |
On 2002.05.22 01:25 Blair Zajac wrote: > Gerd Stolpmann wrote: > > > > Hello list, > > > > I have prepared an experimental version of findlib (download see below) > > [...] > > The simple existence of this directory causes that all files with the suffixes > > .so and .dll are copied into this directory (no symlinks). Of course, this breaks > > the current way of representing the ownership of files. In previous versions, > > all files in the package directory for X are owned by X. This is simple, > > and works for everything else very well. In libexec, there are now .owner files, > > e.g. for dllfoo.so findlib creates a second file dllfoo.so.owner, containing > > only one line with the name of the owner. > > Gerd, > > What about the possibility of having multiple owners for the same library? > I can see the case (in fact I'm going to build a module that does this) > that segments a single shared library into multiple modules. Then I'd > want multiple owners for the same library. > > Are there any other tricks I need to be careful of to make sure that > this works? You could have a special package L that only contains the library, and a minimum cma/cmxa archive that loads the library, but that does not access it. The rest can be placed in other packages that list L as predecessor. Ensure that you call at least one O'Caml function from L (it can be empty), otherwise the linker will remove the libraries from L from any executable you try to build. > On an unrelated point, can you modify the Makefile to define a new > variable, say DEBUG, that is set to either -g or nothing and replace > all the -g's with $(DEBUG)? This would trim down the size of the > generated files. This could also be added to configure as a -debug > command line option. I can send in a patch if requested. I can remove it from the command that builds "ocamlfind", but I do not think that the debugging symbols should be missing in any cma library. They are removed anyway if you build an executable without -g, so it is only a matter of disk space (on the developer's system), and disks become larger all the time. Gerd -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gerd Stolpmann Telefon: +49 6151 997705 (privat) Viktoriastr. 45 64293 Darmstadt EMail: gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de Germany ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners