Re: findlib: it's time to decide!
On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:48:17AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2002 at 11:05:42AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Well, are we speaking about the same thing ?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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.
I would like it better if we would go with a name agreed to also by the
ocaml team.
> > 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?
Mmm, maybe, i could also hack the ocaml-ldconf tool so that it will add
this two dirs 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
Yes, i agree with the META file obligation.
> packager can write one by himself, put it in the .deb and send it
> upstream.
> Anyway this problem isn't strictly related to the DLL-hell as above.
Ok,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: