On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:00:26PM +0100, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> To sum up, here it is my proposal (untested: is the order of inclusion
> of the cma correct?):
maybe someone (Sven) that actively use labl{gl,gtk} could say if the
.cma order is respected?
> > Or, last solution, we can have both packages install the same META
> > file in postinst script installing all needed information, who cares
> > if a nativecode package install information for compiling also
> > bytecode? We still have version problems (are really problems?)
>
>
> ???? I don't follow you here. If the two packages install directories are
> the same, then we are already doomed to version problems because of .mli
> and .cmi files that are shared, aren't we?
Yes but this works only if you install the _same_ version of package
that contains bytecode _and_ package that contains nativecode; we can't
install different version of bytecode/native because they shares the
same META file that can't contains two different "version" fields at
once.
If we really want to, we can have different versions of bytecode and
nativecode libraries installed on the same machine (e.g. installing them
in different dirs), but:
1) I don't really think that is needed nor helpful
2) if (1) is ok for all, just add a "Conflict" field with version
different from the current one on the respective brother package (i.e.
nativecode or bytecode).
Cheers.
--
Stefano "Zack" Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> ICQ# 33538863
Home Page: http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
Undergraduate student of Computer Science @ University of Bologna, Italy
- Information wants to be Open -
Attachment:
pgpyTdOGZp3Ks.pgp
Description: PGP signature