[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: findlib: it's time to decide!

On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Well, are we speaking about the same thing ?


> It means, you will put all dll.so into /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs and all non
> packaged dll.so into /usr/local/lib/ocaml/shlibs, (well or another name
> instead of shlibs), right ?
> I am ok with it, but am rather busy.

Well. About the name I would go for "libexec" which is the name proposed
by Gerd.

> We will keep the ocaml-ldconf tool around for the time being, isn't it ?

Sure, because of gradual translation. Most packages should in future
install shared objects in /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec, but in the meantime we
should continue in using dirs added in ld.conf.

> Then i will try to do a new ocaml package this week which takes this
> into acount, and you can upload the findlib package then (and have it
> depend on the version of ocaml i will upload or later ?).

Ack. So you will put /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec or whatever as default in
ld.conf (I suppose /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf), right? Or are you thinking
about build an ocaml executables suite that use /usr/lib/ocaml/libexec
by default?

> In the meantime, would you volunteer to ask the caml-list and the caml
> team on this subject, and that we with them standardize on a common name
> (libexec, shlibs, whatever, maybe stub-shlibs would be the correct
> name), if not, i will try to do it.

Sure, I can, anyway I doubt that my voice will be heard where other
voices were not. Anyway, I will try on the ocaml ML.

> As for the standardize on using findlib for install, i think it is too
> early, if needed. I agree that everyone third installing third party
> libs should use findlib, but this is not something we can enforce, as
> for the packaged stuff, i think we should let the decision for upstream,
> but then, if you feel like patching all the lib packages and do NMu,
> then ok by me, just be damn sure you don't break things by it.
> Basically, i think we should have a scheme of things that will enable
> us to do a gradual transition, don't you agree ?

I'm not talking about non debianized stuff, obviously we can't enforce
anything about it. I'm talking about adding an entry to our debian ocaml
policy which states that all debianized ocaml libraries "should" ship a
META file. If it's available upstream well, otherwise the debian
packager can write one by himself, put it in the .deb and send it
Anyway this problem isn't strictly related to the DLL-hell as above.


Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy
zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro
"I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney

Attachment: pgp0DRa5r1bYW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: