Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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?
I see. I had the impression that the goal was to bypass testing scripts drawbacks. >> 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? I've looked at the debian-python archives from 2001 and I couldn't find the url I was given by Matthias Klose. I did such a proposal for python two years ago and I go such a reply: http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200101/msg00033.html Ah. I just found the link: http://cvs.debian.org/gcc-3.0/debian/README?rev=1.9&cvsroot=debian-gcc&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup Section "How are the default compilers selected?" >> 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)? You cannot force it to be available when some ocaml package is installed. -- Jérôme Marant http://marant.org
