Re: Counter proposal for the multiple ocaml installed
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 02:51:50PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> I didn't state it explicitely because whatever it depends on,
> since ocaml-base-3.07 does not conflict with ocaml-base-3.06,
> the problem remains.
If A was built with ocaml 3.06, then all the libraries will be in the
3.06 directory, and in any way, A will know nothing about about either
3.07 or B. So yes, you are right, A will break, but because there is no
more an appropriate B for it. It will complain about a lacking B dll.so
(notice this is a problem only for packages providing stub libraries,
not all libraries are such, as i noticed by helping Shouxun with the
baire package).
So there are two ways to solve this.
o Have all libraries providing stublibs built for two releases, with
proper dependency handling. This is the one i would prefer, but it is
more work.
o Only provide libraries for one suite of ocaml. This is what Jerome
propose.
Mmm, it is a bit more complex than that. I feel the dependency thingy
would be the cleanest, even if Georges Mariano would claim i am going at
this backward, but the stronger the dependencies, the less likely we are
to break things.
So, what about a new proposal, concerning the libraries.
Each stublibs providing library (libzip-ocaml for example), should
provide a virtual package which includes his name and the version of the
ocaml package it depends upon, in addition to other stuff.
libzip-ocaml would provide libzip-ocaml-3.06.
Other packages can depend on this then, and no risk of breaking things.
Mmm, let me think a bit more about this issue.
> > > > > 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.
>
> Don't know who's to decide.
about OCAMLPATH, this is an upstream issue.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: