On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 01:20:11PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 12:53:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Mmm, the response to this one is still open, the policy entry is not yet > > written. > > Are you kiddin? see my message on this ML on December 27, 2002, subject > "ocaml packaging policy 0.5".
Mmm, sorry, ... It seems i missed a lot of stuff from you at that time, will check ... > The problem was that some of the autobuilder guys complained that build > daemons doesn't like virtual build dependencies. James Troup, no less. But we have no more info on this, and i think it only affects the arm autobuilder, i think. > So my proposal is to restate the above policy using standard ways > (>=/<<), if this is okay for you I will rewrite the policy chapter. :((( If you do that, how can you be sure at what version an incompatibility will crop in ? Maybe Jerome will lend us his cristal ball ? Maybe we could solve this by saying, that if library foo is at upstream version 1.2.5 for example, and that there is an incompatible change, then we do add a little bit to the upstream version (1.2.5.1 or 1.2.5+1 or whatever) ? That said, this would not enable us to have a different upstream version which is not api incompatible. Maybe we should look at the C libraries version numbering scheme, since our problem is similar to their. > Remember that I'm talking only about interlibrary dependencies, tha > ocaml-3.06 virtual package & c. will remain the same. Yes, but i think we must first finish looking into the problem before we jump to implement it. Friendly, Sven Luther
