Re: purge_ld_conf.pl [Was: Re: the move to stublib]
On Sat, Sep 07, 2002 at 11:33:11AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 07:15:14PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > [ 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 ]
> >
> > you forgot to attach it or something.
>
> yep, as usual, resent!
>
> > Note: i also applied the ocaml-source move.
>
> great.
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Well, i still think it is something that needs to be around forever.
>
> Why you think so? I'm trading off usefullness of the fix with cleanness
> [ it this word really exists in an english dictionary ] ot the package.
> Do you agree with me that the user base affected by the problem after
> woody + 1 is really tiny, if not empty? Then, why keep this trick
> forevere? We have the bug now and I've seen few people arguing about it,
> moreover the bug isn't directly seen by the user, he can safely continue
> in compiling and using other ocaml related apps without even knowing
> that it have a bugged ld.conf. _We_ want to solve the bug because we
> hate a useless entry in ld.conf (those damnet computer scientist guys!
> :-)
Mmm, yes it only is a tiny subset of people, i think.
> > Mmm, does adding a dh_ocamlld -r do the thing we want ? I don't think
> > so, we maybe need to call ocaml-ldconf -R -plibname-ocaml explicitly in
> > a hand written postinst, until woody +1.
> >
> > Mmm, if there is no -r <version_number> option that we could pass to
> > dh_ocamlld, then a centralized solution would be better, are you sure
> > you are not saying that so i go for your solution ? :))))
>
> I was just thinking to explicitely call ocaml-ldconf -R ... until
> woody+1, but if you change your mind and agree with a centralized
> solution .... :-)
But we can do the -r <version_number> thingy, it only needs (i guess) a
little change to the dh_ocamlld stuff (well, i am no perl guy, so ...)
it would just mean analyzing the @ARGV to see if the first of them is
"-r version" or something such. Perl is supposed to be able to do this
easily, is it not ?
> > Mmm, maybe i will learn perl finally and write it myself ...
>
> don't do it, avoid risks for your brain as most as you can! :-))
:)))
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
>
> 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
Reply to: