OCaml/ppc64
by David Woodhouse
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@(a)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
15 years, 9 months
ocamljava
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
mldonkey package for review
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
Do we need an upgrade policy for OCaml packages in Fedora releases?
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
Re: Fedora i386 rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-02-13
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
Re: Fedora i386 rawhide rebuild in mock status 2008-02-09
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
OCaml 3.10.1
by Richard W.M. Jones
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
15 years, 9 months
