Re: Buglet in ocaml-ldconf
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, and so everything hand installed should go there.
Agreed.
[...]
> > * Proposed scheme do not handle versioned dependencies.
> > There are no problem with Debian packages, which themselves
> > have versioned dependencies, But if you compile and install
> > your own modules and then upgrade OCaml, there are trouble.
>
> There is no versionning support in ocaml libraries anyway, it is an open
> problem that has some theoretical implications, so it will not arrive
> that soon (and i don't believe upstream is very keen on this kind of
> things anyway).
This is exactly why installing modules under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/
makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05, you can recompile only the
modules you want now, and let less used modules survive in
/usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If ocaml 3.05 also search files under
/usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ as a last resort, it could find old
modules. If by chance they work without being compiled against 3.05,
they are usable, and if compatibility is broken, the fact that they
reside under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ clearly shows that breakage may
be due to an OCaml version incompatibility, and that this module
must be reinstalled.
[...]
> > * How to upgrade OCaml when locally installed modules do exist?
>
> This is a mess.
>
> Current upstream policy and (strong) recomendation on this is to rebuild
> everything once a new version of ocaml is released (your upgrade), so
> this does not make sense anyway. If it is only a minor change, then it
> is handled transparently anyway.
I don't understand the last sentence, could you please explain to me how
it is handled?
> > This is not a criticism against the current ocaml_packaging_policy,
> > which is a nice document, but focuses only on packaging.
>
> Yes, sure, i did it in haste to help fellow package maintainer, it
> should be expanded and foolproof-read (and spelling errors corrected)
> before it is any true use. I don't think i am a very good writter for
> this kind of stuff though.
>
> That said, there is no need of deciding on this before woody gets
> finally released.
Sure, but it is nice to have a constructive discussion, it seems to
seldom happen on Debian ML at the moment ;)
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: