[aur-general] Ocaml Packages

[Xyne]

Thomas S Hatch wrote:

> I changed the bytecode changes you made, maybe it will make more sense to
> you now how ocaml bytecode works.

Ah, sorry. It's clearer now.


> I added ocaml back to the makedepends, the ocaml package provides the
> compiler.
> 
> OCaml should only be a dependency when the package includes bytecode, since
> ocaml executables are %100 native machine code - this is an error in most
> OCaml packages (I need to fix a number of mine)

If the resulting package does not require ocaml then it should not be named
"ocaml-*". It was my understanding that these packages were OCaml libraries,
i.e. code and/or binaries that should be used within OCaml code.

Maybe there is a misunderstanding about makedepends vs depends. If a package is
required both to build and to run another package, then it should be included
in the depends array. If the package is only required to build the package but
not to run it then it should be included in the makedepends array.

So if the resulting packages are stand-alone executables or generic libraries
then they should not be named "ocaml-*" any more than anything written in C
should be named "c-*". If they are only for use with OCaml then ocaml should be
a dependency and the name should retain the "ocaml-" prefix.


> Oh, and BTW...
> How far along should I be before I apply to be a TU? :)
I'd say you're almost there, but I want to see how this discussion goes before
I say anything more. ;)


Regards,
Xyne