Re: Shall we state on naming (again)?
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 09:52:55PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:46:27PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>
> > > Where did I write this? If you think the question is pointless, then
> > > don't answer.
> >
> > No, you did not write it, but it would kind of make sense to do it that
> > way, and Georges Mariano would o so happy about it :)))
>
> No, I'm not likely to argue on something that has already been
> decided. I'm happy with the library naming scheme.
> I'm just trying to find a solution to a problem that is not
> dealt in the current ocaml policy.
O come on, it was just a joke, ...
> > I don't really have any strong idea about this issue, but remember that
> > it is always easier not to stray from upstream naming scheme, in order
> > to not confuse our users. (Well, that is what we decided the last times
> > we did have this discution).
>
> So I'll do the way we agree about.
How else could it be ?
> > > What is "some other strange stuff"? Why should I make a standalone
> > > OCaml program depend on ocaml-base although there's no real
> > > dependency?
> >
> > Well, i did see a Depends: ocaml-base (>= 3.06) in one package i will
> > not name. This will most assuredly break if ocaml 3.07 is bytecode
>
> Not a package of mime.
Yes, i know.
> > incompatible with ocaml 3.06 which is something that is more than
> > probable (and upstream make no guarantees otherwise, even encourage us
> > to rebuild everything for each version of ocaml.
> >
> > Also, remember, i did speak about _bytecode_ executable. These
> > bytecode executables should be built without the -custom flag, and be
> > arch: all, so they will use the virtual machine of the ocaml-base
> > package, which warant a strong dependency on ocaml-base, don't you
> > think ?
>
> I prefectly understood this. But Makefiles belong to upstream and
> uptream decided to build standelone applications, which sounds
> logical to me.
Yes, and no.
Upstream has other constraints and preocupation that we have. They want
a standalone executable because they have no way of tracking
dependencies, and thus are afraid of having wrong version of stublibs
and/or missing ones, and thus are often afraid of shipping custom
packages. On the other hand, they don't really worry all that much
about having many many copies of the same things installed, and they
most definitively don't worry about more arches than just i386.
We on the other side already have to modify the Makefiles for support of
bytecode on arches not supporting the native code compilers, so removing
the -custom flag by the same way is really not all that much work.
Ideally, we would have a install.debian or something such target in the
upstream tarball (well at least a install.native and a
install.bytecode.nocustom). Most upstream will accept such things if we
send them patches, and anyway, we can also handle it in the .diff.gz.
Also, we manage things on a strong system based level, with strong
version dependencies, which allow us to do things differently, which are
not possible for the upstream developper.
> > And don't tell me we should build with -custom to avoid that, ocaml-base
> > is most tiny (Installed-Size: 520Ko), and i don't think it is conformant
> > with any debian policy to have a copy of this for every bytecode
> > executable, not to speak duplicating the same package for at least 5
> > arches.
>
> But again, I have to patch all the uptream makefiles in order to
> achieve this, and I a bit reluctant...
You are just being lazy ...
(well it was a joke, in case you decide to be offended)
More seriously, you have to patch upstream for a bytecode target most of
the time anyway, so why not do this little more thing at the same time
(as an added bonus, you can strip non -custom built bytecode
executables).
Well, i will not repeat what i just said above.
> > I plan to start a discution on this later here, to add something about
> > it in the ocaml_packaging_policy.
> >
> > > > older (well those in woody at least) such package that do not have both
> > > > the ocaml-base (>= 3.04) and ocaml-base (<< 3.05) dependencies are
> > > > _BROKEN_. But then they are in woody, nothing much we can do on this.
> > >
> > > I'm sorry I don't know of them.
> >
> > It was _not_ directed at you, just a general reminder, since this
> > problem some my think i am raving about all the time, and that too
> > strong dependencies are not good, did bit someone this time.
>
> OK.
Well, what started this is receiving mail of the kind : i installed
ocaml 3.06 and it broke hevea (and another html thingy, i don't remember
which) so i decided to go back to 3.04 as the 3.06 stuff don't seem to
have matured enough.
_AND_ We will be in testing as soon as i find a sparc/sid box, or the
maintainer of the buildd comes around to fix this himself.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: