On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:24:23AM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > En réponse à Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Alternatives are not such a right. Don't you remember > > > the Perl mess using alternatives before Brendan O'Dea > > > took it over? > > > > I don't know, i don't really follow Perl stuff. > > > > Could you summarize the dangers of using alternatives for us ? > > The danger is to have alternatives for different files pointing > to different versions of programs. > > For example, imagine a mess with gcc pointing to gcc-2.95 and > g++ pointing to g++-3.2.
Ok, i don't believe this would be such a problem, but anyway, that is why i was thinking of doing a version changing script, which would wrap all the update-alternative calls. This way, the user would only have to call switch_ocaml <version_number> and automatically the right alternatives for the <version_number> version of ocaml would be choosen, It would be nicer if update_alternative supported alternative meta-packages or something such though. > This is the reason why the symlink solution without alternative > is not used in gcc, for example. Err, i think you wanted to say that is why gcc don't use alternatives but simple symlinks ? > > > Let's do it like Python. > > > > How does python do it ? > > Only the greatest version of Python provides the emacs package. > It is unversioned. Mmm, ok. But the idea was _not_ to rebuild older versions of ocaml when i upload the new one. Let me think more about it. Friendly, Sven Luther
