On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > [...] > > My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or > > on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default > > to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, and so everything hand installed should go there. > > Agreed.
:))) > [...] > > > * Proposed scheme do not handle versioned dependencies. > > > There are no problem with Debian packages, which themselves > > > have versioned dependencies, But if you compile and install > > > your own modules and then upgrade OCaml, there are trouble. > > > > There is no versionning support in ocaml libraries anyway, it is an open > > problem that has some theoretical implications, so it will not arrive > > that soon (and i don't believe upstream is very keen on this kind of > > things anyway). > > This is exactly why installing modules under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ > makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05, you can recompile only the > modules you want now, and let less used modules survive in > /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If ocaml 3.05 also search files under > /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ as a last resort, it could find old > modules. If by chance they work without being compiled against 3.05, > they are usable, and if compatibility is broken, the fact that they > reside under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ clearly shows that breakage may > be due to an OCaml version incompatibility, and that this module > must be reinstalled. Mmm, ok, but this would only make sense if there is a ocaml-3.04 and a ocaml-3.05 package, thing which i didn't want to do. Lets think a bit motre about it. > [...] > > > * How to upgrade OCaml when locally installed modules do exist? > > > > This is a mess. > > > > Current upstream policy and (strong) recomendation on this is to rebuild > > everything once a new version of ocaml is released (your upgrade), so > > this does not make sense anyway. If it is only a minor change, then it > > is handled transparently anyway. > > I don't understand the last sentence, could you please explain to me how > it is handled? Well, if there is a new upstream release, we rebuild, if i fix bugs and do a enw debian release, things can work still (most of the time that is, and if i break something, i will know about it and take the appropriate steps) > > > This is not a criticism against the current ocaml_packaging_policy, > > > which is a nice document, but focuses only on packaging. > > > > Yes, sure, i did it in haste to help fellow package maintainer, it > > should be expanded and foolproof-read (and spelling errors corrected) > > before it is any true use. I don't think i am a very good writter for > > this kind of stuff though. > > > > That said, there is no need of deciding on this before woody gets > > finally released. > > Sure, but it is nice to have a constructive discussion, it seems to > seldom happen on Debian ML at the moment ;) Yes, and this discution should involve upstream also, i will ask them about this after we reach a consensus (well i think we already have, it just needs to be sumarized again, which i will do next week). Friendly, *sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
