Re: dbm library in OCaml-2.04-6
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 02:13:42PM +0000, Georges MARIANO wrote:
> Sven LUTHER wrote:
> >
> > > and that it is probably better to link /usr/lib/include/db1/ndbm.h
> > > to /usr/lib/include/ndbm.h...
> > > (this is what I've done... of course every things works after that...)
> >
> > Well this is not ok, since it breaks debian way of handling stuff.
> of course, but anyway, I wanted to have a working "configure"
> process without modifying upstream sources...
>
> > Yes, modification of the configure script is needed, because at build time,
> > the package get configured. i will fix this, and forward the fix upstream.
>
> seems that it is already fixed
> http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs/fixed?id=67;expression=ndbm;user=guest
> > BTW, 2.99 is packaged in woody as ocaml3 package, which is (for now)
> > incompatible with ocaml (2.04).
>
> do you mean that <<compiling with ocaml 2.04>> is not
> compatible with <<compiling with ocaml 2.99>> ??
>
> This is what I suspect since lots of ocaml stuff didn't compile
> with ocaml2.99 (3?) (but compilations were successfull
> with ocaml 2.04!!) :-(
Well, ...
it is right now (and due to lack of time on my part) not possible to have both
ocaml (2.04) and ocaml3 (2.99) packages installed at the same time (since they
mostly install in the same place, i could do a propper fix for this with
alternatives and other such, but i have not really the time for it, and don't
see the real need for this, as i plan to chip only ocaml 3.00 (as ocaml
package) when woody chips.
If anyone feels different about this please speak up.
the problem is that you would need two versions of the differnet libraries
also.
That said, i upgraded to 2.99, and was able to compile my programs exactly the
same (using the classic mode, didn't try the modern one, but as this is still
shifting, ...).
> By the way, how can we achieve having an ocaml "distribution"
> for potato *and* woody...
Well, just have both defined in the changelog (look at some changelog, they
will show the package name and version, and then one or more of stable frozen
unstable or experimental) just put frozen unstable in both of them.
Anyway, for now, woody is nothing more than potato with some new stuff (like
ocaml3 package) and packages that got pulled out of potato because of
bugginess.
> For now, I think that it is dangerous to switch from
> potato to woody (at least potato is not yet released...)
Well no since woody and potato are almost the same.
Anyway, the woody/potato stuff should make no difference as far as ocaml is
concerned. Another idea would be to chip only ocaml3 (that is actual 2.99) in
woody, and ocaml 2.04 in potato. If nobody objects, i will maybe do that.
Friendly,
Sven LUTHER
Reply to: