Re: versioned libraries dependencies
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:27:31PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 04:08:49PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > rebuilding a new version of ocamlnet will cause pxp to become unusable
> > > (mitical "inconsistent assumption over bla bla" error) if it will not be
> > > rebuilt against the new ocamlnet package.
> > Mmm, ok, i suppose there is no other solution to this ?
> Not in my mind ...
Maybe we should ask the ocaml team about this ?
> > BTW, could you also look at the findlib entry in the policy document ?
> Uh? IIRC I wrote that part of the ocaml packaging policy :-) Have you
> performed some changes?
Well, it currently says :
3) Findlib installation and META files.
<notice : there is a better entry for this contributed by
Stefano, but i have no access to my previous mail right now,
so i will add it for the next version ...>
I think it got lost when i lost my mail archive, and that i didn't put
it in when i redid the package, so maybe you could add the change in the
same patch you send to me ?
> > What i think should be done here, is that when things change that the
> > maintainer know will be incompatible (because of a new version, or
> > because of patch he applied) he bumps either the version of the virtual
> > provide or the debian revision.
> Ok, this was also my idea, we can use Provides: libfoo-ocaml-dev-2.1
> when all goes well and bumg it to Provides: libfoo-ocaml-dev-2.1-2 if we
> need to apply some patch or similar.
Err, i would prefer to do 2.1 and then 2.1-1 or something such.
> Does somebody know about characters limitations in Provides: field?
No, but it is a good question.
> Anyway ocaml package use it so I doubt that something like "-2.1-2" will
> be forbidden ...
A, ok that is what you meant, yes, it is ok, there is a list of
acceptable chars in the docs somewhere, i thought you asked about the
size of the virtual provide.
> > That said, the policy mandates that the .so package depends on the -dev
> > package, and uses the same version, mmm, maybe the policy don't say so,
> > i need to check, but i am busy until tomorrow evening. Anyway, here is
> > what i have for camlzip :
> > Anyway, i don't believe it is good to have different versions of
> > libfoo-ocaml and libfoo-ocaml-dev installed at the same time. So i would
> > say go for it.
> > Yes, please experiment it, and we can then see what came of this
> > experiment and apply it to the policy and all other packages (lablgl and
> > lablgtk are good candidates for this also).
> Ok, so can we start uploading stuff again?
Mmm, are you in a hurry ?
I would wait for this WE and see if the BSP solves the libc6 bugs. If
this is done, then a few days after, ocaml 3.06 will enter testing, and
we can modify stuff.
If not, then we can start uploading.