Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2017 14:25:47 +0100
From: Jean-Louis Fuchs <ganwell@fangorn.ch>
To: Leonardo Arena <rnalrd@gmail.com>
Cc: alpine-aports@lists.alpinelinux.org
Subject: Re: [alpine-aports] [PATCH] testing/lablgtk: new aport
Message-ID: <20170125132547.GA8828@vimes.1042.ch>
References: <1485169970.11710.3.camel@gmail.com>
 <20170124151536.4587-1-ganwell@fangorn.ch>
 <1485348362.11710.63.camel@gmail.com>
Precedence: list
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1485348362.11710.63.camel@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.2 (2016-11-26)


--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi |_eo

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 01:46:02PM +0100, Leonardo Arena wrote:

I'm not familiar with ocaml, except for building unison.

> The dev stuff is ~5 MB, half of the package size (10MB).
> I'm not familiar with ocaml. What would be the inconvenience in having
> a separate -dev pkg?

If you do a native install you need lablgtk and lablgtk-dev. I thought
it might lead to confusion. I think we have these options:

1. Have the dev split and develeopers just have to remember installing
   both packages if they want to do a native-compile.

2. Add lablgtk to depends_dev, so if you intend to do a native-compile
   you will automatically get lablgtk.

3. My current solution.

I first wanted to go for 2. And then thought it might be considered a
hack.

> Would a user just want to use it at run-time only
> or it's an unlikely scenario?

I guess a user never wants run-time only, since the distribution
usually does a native-compile. For example the native-compile package
of unison doesn't need lablgtk at run-time since its all linked into
unison.

But a ocaml developer probably wants run-time only, because he is
using the interpreter during development.

> From Alpine packaging perspective only, 5 MB less in the system are
> definitely worthy a pkg separation.

So I guess we have to go for 1. or 2. let me know if 2. is ok.

Best,
    Jean-Louis

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=B5B/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-aports+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-aports+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---