Selon Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > No, this is wrong. Red Hat and Mandrake, the most widely used commercial > > distro are using /usr/bin . > > Well, what about all the people who install stuff in any random place ? > I think they way outnumber any redhat or mandrake users out there.
What is manualy installed doesn't count. We are discussing what's installed through a package manager, e.g. dpkg or rpm. > Also, like said, i would really like upstream to go this way also (for > ocamlrun) because it is the only way which really makes sense, to be > sure that you don't try to run your privately built bytecode programs > with the wrong compiler once you upgraded your ocaml packages to a new > and incompatible version. But why using multiple ocaml at a time? If you want to change the ocaml version, you need to rebuild binaries anyway. That's what we've been doing so far. > > > Also, notice that it is ever possible to run the bytecode executables as > > > ocamlrun bytecode_file, and it will work whatever was descripted in the > > > #! entry. > > > > This is stupid. You never run bytecode this way. +x chmod'ing the bytecode > > should be enough. > > Why ? it beats editing the bytecode files to change that line by hand. > There is no other way to doing it. It is not required. > > You _have to_ care for other distro because users of ocaml packages > > may distribute binaries that _should_ be executable on other distro. > > Debian _cares_ for compatibilities with others distros (that's what > > LSB is for). > > Yes, sure, but not at all cost. There is no reason i should go into a > rigid mode just because the other distros are not wanting to make some Other distros don't need to. They provide only one Ocaml at a time. > minor and small adjustement (a sylink from ocamlrun-<version> to > ocamlrun should do). What does the LSB says about ocaml bytecode > executables anyway ? LSB was an example. > > Why would the ocaml team support old versions of their compiler? > > Because it is more professional to do that ? As long as you can freely download the latest version, there is no reason to keep an old one around. > > > But again, it was kind of an experiment, i want feedback, and maybe we > > > should also get upstream opinion or the opinion of the community at > > > large. Maxence, can you comment on this, maybe, or ask Xavier > > > personnally about it ? > > > > You may need a rationale before asking ... > > Well, you can keep old (possibly closed source) bytecode programs > arounds with a minimal runtime system (ocamlrun and the stublibs) and > install the new version beside of it. Is that not a rationale enough > reason for it ? Even a reason why debian should do it ? And i think we None I think. One ocaml per debian release sounds sane to me. > should care about this more than other distribs compatibility, even our Compatibility is important for software authors, those who ship binaries, I said. > social contract says so. And anyway, we are the vanguard of ocaml > packaging, i guess others will follow suit if we do something :))) I think more and more of providing my own version of ocaml packages ... -- Jérôme Marant
