Re: [Fedora-packaging] Meaning of -devel
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> So my question: If I'm packaging ocaml-calendar (a library) then should
> the parts which make the above possible go into the main package or
> ocaml-calendar-devel?
We've already determined that OCaml is ... special.
Thanks for your prompt reply!
Here's the rule of thumb I've always used:
In the traditional library/binary model:
The main package is for libraries and components that another binary
would need to execute. I can't _run_ foo without libbar.so.6 being
present.
The -devel package is for headers and components that are needed to
build that binary. I can't _build_ foo without bar.h being present.
So, in the OCaml universe, I'd say those .cma files fall into the main
package, as I can't run _foo_ without those .cma files present.
In fact because OCaml binaries are statically linked to OCaml libraries
foo doesn't require anything to run.
The *.cma file is a bit more like a *.a file, but as ever the parallels
aren't precise.
However by the sounds of it, it seems that everything should go in
-devel. Is it a problem if the main package is completely empty?
Note that I know absolutely NOTHING about OCaml besides what
you've told
me.
I've been programming in OCaml nearly exclusively for 4 years, and even
_I_ don't know all the ins and outs of the various files used. Mostly
this stuff just happens. I had to 'strace' the toplevel running to see
which files it needed.
Rich.
--
Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/
Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod
Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in
England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Attachments:
- smime.p7s (application/x-pkcs7-signature — 3.2 KB)