OCaml and static linking (was old thread: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Issues with Ocaml and Static Linking)
a.badger at gmail.com
Thu Jun 7 16:56:12 UTC 2007
On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > If you, Gérard, Hans, and the other people working on OCaml think the
> > guidelines are ready we can discuss and vote to include them at next
> > week's packaging meeting. The committee is meeting at Tuesday at 17:00
> > UTC for about an hour in #fedora-meeting on freenode IRC.
> It's in my diary.
> >> (3) OCaml contains a native code compiler, but that compiler hasn't been
> >> ported to all architectures that Fedora supports. It has a bytecode
> >> compiler which works everywhere (but is interpreted and hence slow). I
> >> haven't been very careful about detecting if native code is supported on
> >> the current architecture.
> >> --> ExcludeArch and/or lots of nasty %ifarch sections in %files.
> >> --> I don't have a non-native arch to test on.
> > What's missing? ppc64? Is there a possibility of support being added
> > upstream? I can't think of any other packages/languages that have this
> > problem offhand. We may need to do something nasty with subpackages and
> > %ifarch but I'd rather avoid that if possible. I don't know how
> > possible that is, though.
> I ended up copying the solution that Debian use -- when building detect
> if ocamlopt (the native code compiler) is available.
> I built four packages this way, testing on a "simulated" bytecode-only
Looks good. What are the caveats to doing things this way for the %
files section? I imagine as long as wildcards are used it will work but
we might want to have an example with a comment saying that the wildcard
makes it work on both native and non-native archs.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Fedora-packaging