Proposal ocaml guidelines

Nigel Jones dev at
Fri May 4 05:31:11 UTC 2007

> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 21:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Okay,
>>> The proposal I mailed to the list yesterday is now available here:
>> Thanks Hans!
> Please keep in mind I'm not an ocaml expert, I just did some reading on it
> as I needed to know something about it todo reviews.
>> I have a question about bytecode/native code.  Should the guidelines
>> specify that module packages build both bytecode and native code?  As a
>> precedent, a java library will install a native code version to
>> %{_libdir}/ and byte code to /usr/share/java/foo-1.0.jar.
> Thats not how ocaml handles things. Ocaml code gets compiled to bytecode
> objects, native<->ocaml glue code gets compiled to native objects.
> Then when compiling an application / program, you can compile it in 2
> ways:
> 1) to a bytecode program which will require the ocaml runtime and the .so
>     versions of any native code from used modules/libs. All bytecode
> objects
>     from used modules will get staticly liked in.
>     This reminds me, since ocaml will dlopen the .so files with native
> code of
>     used modules, an application compiled this way should have Requires:
>     for all used modules of which native parts are used.
> 2) To native code, in this case the bytecode parts of used modules get
>     converted to native code and any native objects which are part of
> modules
>     get staticly linked in, resulting in a native binary which is
> independent of
>     any ocaml modules (but which will still depend upon any be dynamicly
> linked
>     against any normal native libraries used by modules, like libjpeg)
>> I also wonder if we want to specify that ocaml programs should be
>> compiled to native code.
> According to Debian's guidelines this has both advantages and
> disadvantages, so
> its probably best to use upstream's default behaviour.
> Also worth noticing is that native compilation is not available on all
> platforms. Luckily it is available for all platforms which are part of
> Fedora.
> Regards,
> Hans
> p.s.
> What do you think about the Naming part of the proposal? I'm currently
> doing an
> ocaml related review which mainly needs a "decision" on the naming part of
> the
> proposal. I think this is not very controversial, so if atleast an
> agreement
> could be reached on this, then said review can move forward.
I'm actually happy with it, I'm going to change the name in the review
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at

More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list