On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 04:25:13PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > There are two problems, the first, concerning only me and the ocaml-base > package, which i solved by calling ocaml-ldconf in a hand written > postinst, was responsable for the broken /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf bug. Ok: decr problems;; > And the postrm ocaml-ldconf call will not be called for the upgrade > action. I think i had a patch for this or something such, but it still > is in my dead box HD, and not available right now. This is not fixed, > and need to be. Ok, I've just sent to the BTS the patch for /usr/share/debhelper/autoscripts/postrm-ocamlld (which is the template used by debhelper to create the postrm script). [ BTW I've also sent to the BTS the ancient patch for ocaml-ldconf, so you can see if there is still the case to apply it or not ] > The --purge should be ok, since it seems to call remove also. Right. > After thinking about it, we can take three attitudes toward this : > > o fix this in a centralized way in ocaml-base postinst (with an > upgraded ocaml-ldconf or your script). > > o fix this per library. > > o don't fix it, and provide a hint for the users to fix this by > themselves. > > Notice that in the two first cases, it will be something which we will > need to carry around forever, not just upto the next major release, > since there are also people who will upgrade woody directly to woody+2. Uhm, I am for a middle-way approach: no matter what we will choose between the first and second point, my idea is to keep the fix until woody+1 and then switch to the third point. The user that probably need the fix after woody+1 are probably ... none ... anyway we can told users to safely remove path in /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf if they found it. > Notice, the third option (doing nothing) is also valable, since the > paths added by /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf come _after_ the default ones, and > it would just search a few more path in the unlikely case that you try > loading an unexistent library. It is not that bad. see above. > What do you think about it, does someone still has the patch about ? (or > maybe i should upgrade to a newer debhelper). sent to the BTS. > And does someone know if it is easily possible to have dh_ocamlld made > aware of the -g and -r <version_number> options ? Is possible but I think that is an unneeded effort. As you said having useless dirs is not too bad, moreover we can remove it from now until woody+1 manually invoking dh_ocamlld -r .... where needed, after woody+1 affected systems will be probably none: I don't like to change dh_ocamlld just for these. Cheers. -- 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:
pgpVXcnvfAWkG.pgp
Description: PGP signature