Ocaml-devel February 2008

ocaml-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
7 discussions

OCaml/ppc64
by David Woodhouse 01 Mar '08

01 Mar '08

Bored again, playing with OCaml/ppc64 for a bit of light relief. boot/ocamlrun ./ocamlopt -nostdlib unix.cmxa -g -I stdlib -I ../otherlibs/unix ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild_executor.cmx ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild_pack.cmx ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild_unix_plugin.cmx ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild.cmx -o ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild.native /usr/bin/ld: ocamlbuild/ocamlbuild_pack.o(.text+0x500c): unresolvable R_PPC64_REL24 relocation against symbol `ceil@@GLIBC_2.3' /usr/bin/ld: final link failed: Nonrepresentable section on output How do I make it link against -lm? Why doesn't this bite elsewhere? -- dwmw2

3 3

ocamljava
by Richard W.M. Jones 22 Feb '08

22 Feb '08

ocamljava is an exciting looking project. It is a modification of the OCaml compiler so it targets Java bytecode. You can run unmodified OCaml programs on a JVM, call into Java libraries, call OCaml from Java and so on. It's fiendishly hard to build though, but after a few hours I have most of it compiled and a reasonable-looking srpm which only has a few rpmlint errors. I've opened a tracking bug for this if anyone else wants to have a go: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434560 Current spec file: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/ocaml/ocaml-ocamljava.spec 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

1 0

mldonkey package for review
by Richard W.M. Jones 16 Feb '08

16 Feb '08

I've created a package & review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433143 I've only started it up (mlgui) and it looks OK to me, but can someone who actually uses this please test it. You'll need Rawhide to rebuild. The %doc section isn't quite right yet. rpmlint complains about the various encoding problems with files in doc. 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

1 0

Do we need an upgrade policy for OCaml packages in Fedora releases?
by Richard W.M. Jones 16 Feb '08

16 Feb '08

We've got requests such as this one (upgrade lablgtk to 2.10.0 in Fedora 8): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=424821 and a related one from Peter Lemenkov to support mldonkey. As I commented in that BZ, if we do that upgrade then at least 4 dependent packages need to be rebuilt as well. Furthermore anyone writing their own software on F8 which used any of these packages would need to at least recompile. On the other hand I took the opportunity this week to upgrade several packages in Rawhide (including lablgtk 2.10.0). That shouldn't be a problem because we expect Rawhide to break things. So I wonder if we need a policy that once a version of Fedora has been released, we don't upgrade packages on a whim, but only if there is a serious need (eg. security or some otherwise unresolvable bug). What do people think? I don't want to be too restrictive. If people don't mind recompiling that's another matter. Perhaps we should only have this policy for the base OCaml package and some other "vital" packages (eg. findlib) and leave the decision on a case-by-case basis for other packages? 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

2 1

Re: Fedora i386 rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-02-13
by Richard W.M. Jones 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Matt Domsch wrote: > freetennis-0.4.8-6.fc7 (build/make) rjones [...] > ocaml-lablgl-1.02-15.fc8 (build/make) gemi > ocaml-ocamlnet-2.2.9-1.fc9 (build/make) rjones,gemi Gemi: All of these packages are fixed in Fedora CVS now, same goes for the apparent dependency problems from the Rawhide report yesterday. I'm just waiting for them to get pushed through the system. 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

1 0

Re: Fedora i386 rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-02-09
by Richard W.M. Jones 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

Matt Domsch wrote: > ocaml-lablgl-1.02-15.fc8 (build/make) gemi > ocaml-ocamlnet-2.2.9-1.fc9 (build/make) rjones,gemi I fixed both of these bugs last night by coincidence when doing the 3.10.1 upgrade. They are both in F-9, or will be shortly. 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

1 0

OCaml 3.10.1
by Richard W.M. Jones 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

Anyone object to me pushing ocaml 3.10.1 + all new packages to Rawhide? 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

3 5

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Ocaml-devel February 2008