On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 08:29:14PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > > Hello, > > Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > ----- Forwarded message from Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----- > > What is the meaning of all those forwards?
Because i was stupid, and did a reply to the automatic message from the pts, and my reply was thus sent to debian-devel and stefano. Stefano was so kind as to sent the messages to the list, where they belonged. I hope he will have had time to adapt the forwarding stuff to rewrite Reply-to. > I'm not sure that it is a good idea. Do we really want multiple versions > of ocaml at a time? If it does not cost much ? And i have got people asking about this, and it can make sense in some cases. In particular, this would enable me to package cvs snapshots. > Unstable is dedicated to development and is not targeted at the end > user so it may break sometimes. And unstable is the right place to > handle transitions like the OCaml one. > So when we swtich to another OCaml, we are hopefully forced to > quickly recompile libraries. > > When a program is compiled with a given version of ocaml and wants > to use a library that is compiled with another ocaml (or worse, > is linked against a dll.so), you'll have troubles and you'll need to > recompile it anyway. No, because each version of ocaml will only know about the libraries that are compiled with the exact same version. > Better avoid any problem by making something uninstalable. No, i don't think there will be a problem. > My conclusion: you proposal works fine IFF we provide versioned > packages of our libraries. Mmm, i don't believe this would be a problem, if you build the package with a given version, then it will go in the ocamllibdir of that version, and another version of ocaml will not know about it. Friendly, Sven Luther
