On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote: > Selon Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > I'm pleased to hear that :-) > > > > Ok, i can do this way then, i would like to hear from Stefano first > > though. > > :-) > > > > > Also, to not let the suffix work i did get lost, i could release cvs > > > > snapshot packagesusing this technics, and we can delay the move to it > > > > to the next release. > > > > > > I think it should be discussed upstream first. > > > > It would be nice if snapshot libraries were also packaged using said > > ocaml cvs snapshots. This would stress test the whole thing, and give us > > good experience about how to handle this. > > It is currently possible. > > > > > I am still waiting for a apt/dpkg patch to fix the virtual packages > > > > problem from Jerome :)))))) > > > > > > :) I can try to fix problems but I don't know what they are ;-) > > > > There is the source, and the exact problem is the one reported by > > Laurent Bonnaud. apt-get build-dep bibtex2html does not find the > > ocaml-3.06-1 package, and does not know about virtual packages. > > Usually, virtual packages cannot be used alone, you need: > Build-Depends: real-package | virtual-package > with real-package providing virtual package.
Won't work, because we don't use virtual package as a mean for choosing alternatives, but as a mean to provide an api, like perl-5.6-api or whatever it was named. I am told that perl can do this only because it is in the official policy package, which seems a bit unfair to me, and a good incentive to bring the ocaml poplicy into the true policy (once it is sgmlized that is). > This is the root of the problem methink: APT won't make any decision > on what to choose. And he should not, there is no other alternative. > > I think the right solution is to make ocaml-3.07 a real package (maybe > > provided by the ocaml source package) and have it provide the ocaml > > package. This way it would be transparent for users, which do an apt-get > > install only, and since nobody should use ocaml as build dependencies, > > it should not be much of a problem. Mmm, i like this, it seems nice, > > We can always use the old way of build-depending. I prefer to have a wrapper package. > > altough i guess using ocaml as build dependencies would also have been > > usefull, but could create dangers for the autobuilders when the new > > ocaml is not yet ready. Anyway, it would still be nice to have apt fixed > > for this. > > Policy requires what I explained about, so APT is not necessarily to > be fixed. But it is permitted for perl. Friendly, Sven Luther
