On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 02:21:46PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > No, there was no typo. ocaml 3.06 is meant to be pushed out > > > of the archive once ocaml 3.07 replaces it. > > > ocaml3.07 (note the package name with the version within) > > > is the package that we upload when 3.06 is still in the archive. > > > > Ok, ... > > > > I was more of thinking along the lines of uploading ocaml-3.06 and > > ocaml > > (version 3.07). But your idea also has merit. > > > > > > > I made assumption with respect to what you said, am I correct? > > > > > > > > Well, yes, this is the main idea. But then, we can also keep 3.06, > > but > > > > not rebuild the libs for it. > > > > > > It is not possible as I described: the idea is to perform the > > > final step once the transition is complete. > > > > Mmm, let me think about it. > > > > BTW, stefano proposed to upload ocaml-3.06 and ocaml-3.07, and have > > ocaml being a dummy package depending on the version we like. > > This works like this for Python (and GCC) because people have to provide > multiple versions of libraries, one for each version. > We clearly don't want to do that but rather ease transitions, and > remove the old version of ocaml when possible. > We must tell the use we do not support old versions of ocaml.
Ok, let us think about this a bit more. > > > > There is nothing stopping use from having many versions of ocam > > > > linstalled at the same time, the only problem is with the > > libraries. > > > > > > Yes, and such problem is not worth it. I don't want to add a > > > version number in my packages any times a new ocaml comes out. > > > A new stable version of Ocaml should become the standard one > > > as quick as possible, otherwise some people will find good > > > reasons to keep old versions (like Georges Mariano with ioxml). > > > > But there is no risk in providing older versions of the ocaml package, > > if we clearly state that it is not the supported one, please upgrade, > > and we don't build libraries ourselves, but let this be the sole > > provence of the user. > > Stating does not suffice, IMO. I'd prefer when upgrading forces > the removal of packages (which happens on transitions), than > breaking the system. Even if i patch ocaml so that it displays a big fat warning each time the compilers or toplevel are runs ? > > Err, why ? they can be rebuilt, for fixing bugs and so, using the old > > ocaml suite, no problem with that. It _must_ even be something that > > our > > scheme allows, or we may not be able to support security bugfixes, and > > this is not what we want (and may make the security team unhappy). > > Package: A > Depends: B > > Package: B > Depends: ocaml-base-3.06 > > Now, assume that you recompile B against ocaml-base-3.07. > > Package: B > Depends: ocaml-base-3.07 > > And upgrading is still possible. But A will be broken. > How do you plan do handle such cases? This is clearly a bug in the A package. if it contains ocaml bytecode or is a library, then it should depend on ocaml-base-3.06 also, if not, then there should be no influence of rebuilding B with ocaml 3.07. But then, maybe i am wrong, but think about it, what you are meaning here is that A depends on ocaml-base-3.06 without stating it explicitly. > ... > > > What is ~/ocaml/3.06 ? > > > > It is for home installed libraries, for user not having writing rights > > to /usr/local. > > Well, we don't have to decide where the user will install personal > modules in is home dir. He should modif the path himself. This is > at least how it happens on unix systems. Erm, yes, sure. But it would be nice to have an easy way of adding such a path automatically, without breaking things. Friendly, Sven Luther > > -- > Jérôme Marant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://marant.org > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
