On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 10:28:32AM -0500, Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > Sure, and that is what we will have to do. This is a lengthy process though,
> > and we had hoped to avoid this. This means not only changing the LIBDIR
> > name,
> > but also changing the virtual versioned package from ocaml-3.08
> Sure, and that is what we will have to do. This is a lengthy process though,
> and we had hoped to avoid this. This means not only changing the LIBDIR name,
> but also changing the virtual versioned package from ocaml-3.08 to
> ocaml-3.08.3, which our autobuilders still have trouble with.
Someho
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Also notice that on debian systems, you should not install into
> plain /usr/local, but into /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.08.3
That's what I do -- with the advantage it is readily build from
`ocamlc -version` (well in fact I install in
/us
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 04:40:50PM +0100, Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jacques Garrigue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > It is reasonnable to assume that 3.08.3 will not be binary compatible.
>
> BTW, what about then changing the library locations
> (e.g. /usr/lib/ocaml/3.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Jacques Garrigue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It is reasonnable to assume that 3.08.3 will not be binary compatible.
BTW, what about then changing the library locations
(e.g. /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08) to include the "minor number"
(e.g. /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3)? [Applies also to l
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:53:23PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Binary compatibility as you get it in C is just a hack: you drop some
> > > consistency checks, and hope that the user is clever enough to not use
> > > incompatible libraries. Ocaml choo
From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Binary compatibility as you get it in C is just a hack: you drop some
> > consistency checks, and hope that the user is clever enough to not use
> > incompatible libraries. Ocaml chooses the safe way. This could be made
> > a bit more resilient, particularl
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:25:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Stuff like GODI are just hacky workaround for systems that lack real
> system-wide package management and good ocaml integration like debian does :)
Of course, GODI is a good stopgap measure until the whole world runs
Debian.
William,
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 10:08:01PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2005, at 14:37, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Also, we are hoping to release soon, and the debian release manager
> >will
> >assuredly not wait for ocaml stuff to rebuild if it is the only thing
> >missing.
> >The release del
On Jan 16, 2005, at 14:37, Sven Luther wrote:
Also, we are hoping to release soon, and the debian release manager
will
assuredly not wait for ocaml stuff to rebuild if it is the only thing
missing.
The release delay have hurt enough as it is.
[...]
Just forgetting about the fix and include it in
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 08:26:37AM -0800, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Well, if binary compatibility could be maintained at least on the bug fix
> > branch, it would be good already.
> >
> > But if what Jacques says is true, and the binary compatibility i
From: Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Well, if binary compatibility could be maintained at least on the bug fix
> branch, it would be good already.
>
> But if what Jacques says is true, and the binary compatibility is only broken
> by the way the diggests are calculated, maybe there may be a
>
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:33:09PM +0100, Berke Durak wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:25:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> > > It's worth mentioning that the pain of such upgrades is considerably
> > > reduced by the use of a pack
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 01:07:19PM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> Sven Luther writes:
>
> > Notice that this is really not nice for a bugfix release, since this means
> > we
> > have to rebuild all of the ocaml related packages on all arches, which may
> > take us month and such.
>
> I find this f
On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 02:25:29PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> > It's worth mentioning that the pain of such upgrades is considerably
> > reduced by the use of a package manager like GODI. It's hardly
> > perfect, but it makes such th
On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:01:00AM -0500, Yaron Minsky wrote:
> It's worth mentioning that the pain of such upgrades is considerably
> reduced by the use of a package manager like GODI. It's hardly
> perfect, but it makes such things much easier.
We already have a package manager, thank you all t
Sven Luther writes:
> Notice that this is really not nice for a bugfix release, since this means we
> have to rebuild all of the ocaml related packages on all arches, which may
> take us month and such.
I find this figure surprinsing. Compiling the whole of GODI (which
contains roughly the same
It's worth mentioning that the pain of such upgrades is considerably
reduced by the use of a package manager like GODI. It's hardly
perfect, but it makes such things much easier.
y
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:36:32 +0100, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:02:39PM -0
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 03:02:39PM -0800, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
> From: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote:
> > > Or you can wait a few weeks for 3.08.3.
> >
> > BTW, do 3.08.3 break binary compatibility with 3.08.2?
> > (
From: Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:53:07PM +0100, Damien Doligez wrote:
> > Or you can wait a few weeks for 3.08.3.
>
> BTW, do 3.08.3 break binary compatibility with 3.08.2?
> (as happened when upgrading from 3.08.1 to 3.08.2)
Any bug fix in the compiler h
20 matches
Mail list logo
