Re: Counter proposal for the multiple ocaml installed
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 02:21:46PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
>
> > > No, there was no typo. ocaml 3.06 is meant to be pushed out
> > > of the archive once ocaml 3.07 replaces it.
> > > ocaml3.07 (note the package name with the version within)
> > > is the package that we upload when 3.06 is still in the archive.
> >
> > Ok, ...
> >
> > I was more of thinking along the lines of uploading ocaml-3.06 and
> > ocaml
> > (version 3.07). But your idea also has merit.
> >
> > > > > I made assumption with respect to what you said, am I correct?
> > > >
> > > > Well, yes, this is the main idea. But then, we can also keep 3.06,
> > but
> > > > not rebuild the libs for it.
> > >
> > > It is not possible as I described: the idea is to perform the
> > > final step once the transition is complete.
> >
> > Mmm, let me think about it.
> >
> > BTW, stefano proposed to upload ocaml-3.06 and ocaml-3.07, and have
> > ocaml being a dummy package depending on the version we like.
>
> This works like this for Python (and GCC) because people have to provide
> multiple versions of libraries, one for each version.
> We clearly don't want to do that but rather ease transitions, and
> remove the old version of ocaml when possible.
> We must tell the use we do not support old versions of ocaml.
Ok, let us think about this a bit more.
> > > > There is nothing stopping use from having many versions of ocam
> > > > linstalled at the same time, the only problem is with the
> > libraries.
> > >
> > > Yes, and such problem is not worth it. I don't want to add a
> > > version number in my packages any times a new ocaml comes out.
> > > A new stable version of Ocaml should become the standard one
> > > as quick as possible, otherwise some people will find good
> > > reasons to keep old versions (like Georges Mariano with ioxml).
> >
> > But there is no risk in providing older versions of the ocaml package,
> > if we clearly state that it is not the supported one, please upgrade,
> > and we don't build libraries ourselves, but let this be the sole
> > provence of the user.
>
> Stating does not suffice, IMO. I'd prefer when upgrading forces
> the removal of packages (which happens on transitions), than
> breaking the system.
Even if i patch ocaml so that it displays a big fat warning each time
the compilers or toplevel are runs ?
> > Err, why ? they can be rebuilt, for fixing bugs and so, using the old
> > ocaml suite, no problem with that. It _must_ even be something that
> > our
> > scheme allows, or we may not be able to support security bugfixes, and
> > this is not what we want (and may make the security team unhappy).
>
> Package: A
> Depends: B
>
> Package: B
> Depends: ocaml-base-3.06
>
> Now, assume that you recompile B against ocaml-base-3.07.
>
> Package: B
> Depends: ocaml-base-3.07
>
> And upgrading is still possible. But A will be broken.
> How do you plan do handle such cases?
This is clearly a bug in the A package. if it contains ocaml bytecode or
is a library, then it should depend on ocaml-base-3.06 also, if not,
then there should be no influence of rebuilding B with ocaml 3.07.
But then, maybe i am wrong, but think about it, what you are meaning
here is that A depends on ocaml-base-3.06 without stating it explicitly.
> ...
> > > What is ~/ocaml/3.06 ?
> >
> > It is for home installed libraries, for user not having writing rights
> > to /usr/local.
>
> Well, we don't have to decide where the user will install personal
> modules in is home dir. He should modif the path himself. This is
> at least how it happens on unix systems.
Erm, yes, sure. But it would be nice to have an easy way of adding such
a path automatically, without breaking things.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
>
> --
> Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
> <jerome.marant@free.fr>
>
> http://marant.org
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: