Re: proposal: new ocaml dirs schema
Hello,
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@cs.unibo.it> writes:
> ----- Forwarded message from Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> -----
What is the meaning of all those forwards?
> <snip .changes file for libpgsql-ocaml>
>
>> * Build-Depends and Depends on postgresql-dev >= 7.2.3
>
> Yes, ...
>
> And postgreSQL has been build for all arches, needing 2 days. So now
> that this is fixed, please, let's have a 10 day freeze, So ocaml 3.06
> can enter testing. Once that is done, each package can enter testing
> separatedly.
>
> Also, notice, i am also thinking of a scheme about moving ocaml
> directory to /usr/lib/ocaml/3.06, what do you think about this ? This
> would mean a whole recompile of all the ocaml packages, but would enable
> us to do side by side installation of different versions of ocaml.
>
> In this way, when a new release is made (let's say ocaml 3.07), i will
> rename the current packages as ocaml-3.06, which will still provide
> ocaml-3.06 and ocaml-base-3.06, and have the new ocaml package,
> providing ocaml-3.07 and ocaml-base-3.07 roll into testing without
> problems of the kind we are having now.
I'm not sure that it is a good idea. Do we really want multiple versions
of ocaml at a time?
Unstable is dedicated to development and is not targeted at the end
user so it may break sometimes. And unstable is the right place to
handle transitions like the OCaml one.
So when we swtich to another OCaml, we are hopefully forced to
quickly recompile libraries.
When a program is compiled with a given version of ocaml and wants
to use a library that is compiled with another ocaml (or worse,
is linked against a dll.so), you'll have troubles and you'll need to
recompile it anyway.
Better avoid any problem by making something uninstalable.
My conclusion: you proposal works fine IFF we provide versioned
packages of our libraries.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
Reply to: