Re: ocaml packaging policy ...
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 03:37:19PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:48:24PM +0100, Sven wrote:
> > please all have a look at this document which will come with ocaml 3.04-6, it
> > is supposed to be a begining of a ocaml policy document, altough i am not a
> > very good writter, and it may be badly worded, obscure and full of english
> > erros.
>
> I had a quick look at the documenta and this seems to me a good start
> for an ocaml packaging policy, anyway I think that some little
> improvement can be made. Better after woody release and when we have
And it may be reread for english, i think.
> more time (IIRC you, Sven, are currently heavy occupied).
Yes, i did change appartment last week, and will be more and more absorbed in
finishing my phd thesis this next 6 month or so.
> Anyway some points have to be discussed ASAP:
> 1) mainly: fits the requirement stated in such a policy require a great
> amounts of change expecially to library packages, should we start making
> that changes or we better wait the freeze? I know that the freeze seems
> to be really far, but does we want to risk?
Yes, but we should go for it, at i will do it for the libraries i maintain.
But anyway, it can be done stepwise, if we do it for some package before the
woody freeze, then ok, if not, the old way will not break.
The older package needs to be rebuild for 3.04 though.
> 2) the dependencies requirement seems to me a bit more restrictive.
> Possible becuase I miss a point: is it granted that new version of ocaml
> compiler means backword incompatibility with old bytecodes?
Well, no it is not granted, but the opposite is not true also.
Basically, each time the AST or the file format does change, there are
possible incompatibilities, and it may mean no end of problems for us, at
least that is what i have experienced. Anyway, upstream recommends to rebuild
stuff for each new version of ocaml, and that is what i will do here.
It could be possible that we may attain a more advanced stuff in the future,
something we could lobby with the ocaml consortium, but i didn't manage to go
to the JFLA this year, so i don't know more about this.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: