On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:23:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:48:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > > Yes, sure, but it seemed to me that the discussion between you and Sven > > > was drifiting from our, common, goal. > > Which is? > > Uhm ... let me think ... perhaps distributing the better ocaml packages > possible? > > > We must no use alternatives. There is no way to sync alternatives > > for every binary. It is strongly not recommended (by GCC maintainers). > > Uhm I didn't know that, do you have a pointer? > > > There is currently no way to group multiple binaries in a single > > alternative. > > Yes sure, but I guess that a sysadm changing the alternative only for > ocamlc and not for ocamlrun is probably not aware of what he's doing and > he probably deserve the obtained results ... > > Anyway let's consider the other idea, what have you against an > additional binary package providing only the symlinks (the python way)?
I will use a wrapper gcc package, which would depend on the right version, and provide only the symlinks, and fail very loudly if someone did unauthorized ans silly things like having a /usr/bin/ocaml directory. I think this would be ok, for the user it would be transparent, he would install ocaml, use ocaml and never notice, beside of the ocamlrun question, which i think is not ok right now anyway, and most users would use native code anyway. Friendly, Sven Luther
