On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:48:17AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Well, are we speaking about the same thing ? > > Yes. > > > It means, you will put all dll.so into /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs and all non > > packaged dll.so into /usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs, (well or another name > > instead of shlibs), right ? > > > > I am ok with it, but am rather busy. > > Well. About the name I would go for "libexec" which is the name proposed > by Gerd.
I would like it better if we would go with a name agreed to also by the ocaml team. > > We will keep the ocaml-ldconf tool around for the time being, isn't it ? > > Sure, because of gradual translation. Most packages should in future > install shared objects in /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec, but in the meantime we > should continue in using dirs added in ld.conf. > > > Then i will try to do a new ocaml package this week which takes this > > into acount, and you can upload the findlib package then (and have it > > depend on the version of ocaml i will upload or later ?). > > Ack. So you will put /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec or whatever as default in > ld.conf (I suppose /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf), right? Or are you thinking > about build an ocaml executables suite that use /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec > by default? Mmm, maybe, i could also hack the ocaml-ldconf tool so that it will add this two dirs by default. > > In the meantime, would you volunteer to ask the caml-list and the caml > > team on this subject, and that we with them standardize on a common name > > (libexec, shlibs, whatever, maybe stub-shlibs would be the correct > > name), if not, i will try to do it. > > Sure, I can, anyway I doubt that my voice will be heard where other > voices were not. Anyway, I will try on the ocaml ML. > > > As for the standardize on using findlib for install, i think it is too > > early, if needed. I agree that everyone third installing third party > > libs should use findlib, but this is not something we can enforce, as > > for the packaged stuff, i think we should let the decision for upstream, > > but then, if you feel like patching all the lib packages and do NMu, > > then ok by me, just be damn sure you don't break things by it. > > > > Basically, i think we should have a scheme of things that will enable > > us to do a gradual transition, don't you agree ? > > I'm not talking about non debianized stuff, obviously we can't enforce > anything about it. I'm talking about adding an entry to our debian ocaml > policy which states that all debianized ocaml libraries "should" ship a > META file. If it's available upstream well, otherwise the debian Yes, i agree with the META file obligation. > packager can write one by himself, put it in the .deb and send it > upstream. > Anyway this problem isn't strictly related to the DLL-hell as above. Ok, Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
