Re: again on new ocaml dirs schema
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 11:22:02AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 10:28:09AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > If we go for the move of the ocaml libdir from /usr/lib/ocaml to
> > /usr/lib/ocaml/3.06, to ease the transition phase while we all rebuild
> > our library packages, it think we should modify the ocaml-3.06 and
> > ocaml-base-3.06 virtual packages to ocaml-3.06.1 and ocaml-base-3.06.1
> > or something such, what do you think ?
>
> IMO there's no need. Just wait that the ocaml 3.06 situation stabilize
> in testing and the go and perform "dangerous" things in unstable, this
> what unstable is for.
No, the problem is that there will be no reason for the new ocaml
packages not to enter testing after 10 days, since all packages depend
on the virtual package. Anyway, you may see the increasing of the
virtual package version as a way to demostrate incompatible changes,
like bumping the so number in libs.
> > This way, it could even be possible to have the old ocaml 3.06 and the
> > new ocaml 3.06 in //.
>
> ???
Well, old ocaml pacakge in /usr/lib/ocaml, and newer ones in
/usr/lib/ocaml/3.06. It is the same difference between having ocaml 3.04
and ocaml 3.06 installed at the same time.
> > And one problem that i didn't speak about, and that need sovled, is how
> > to handle the parts of ocaml that install outside of the libdir. These
> > are basically the binaries (just append -3.06 to the old ones when a new
> > release is made) and the manpages (same solution).
>
> For the binaries I said something about them in my previous mail just
> have all ocaml executables followed by a "-<vers>" string and use
> symlinks.
Yes, but it may be easier to not use symlink, after all, if you want to
use older packages, you may well make some changes to the makefiles for
it. And it would solve the manpage problem also.
> For manpages I don't know ... uhm ... oh, yes, just have manpages for
> executables (i.e. "man ocamlc-3.06") and symlinks also there.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: