Re: cameleon: byte or native?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 01:38:33PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Judicael Courant wrote:
>
> >A slightly better one IMHO, would be to provide three packages instead
> >of two for each program: X, X-native and X-byte. X would provide files
> >independent from the bytecode/native status of the executable.
> >
> >There we would have
> >
> >zoggy 'Depends:'ing on zoggy-native (= 1.2xxx) | zoggy-byte (= 1.2xxx))
> >
> >and cameleon would just depend on zoggy.
> >
> >
>
> Well, it doesn't improve anything IMHO. I'd prefer to add mode dependencies
> to cameleon rather that adding more packages.
Jerome, remember that is good for coq is not necessarily good for cameleon.
BTW, i was rather busy last week, and had to replace my power supply and
my monitor (i broke one of the pins from the cable :(((), so i could not
upload the new libdir moved ocaml.
Also, it seems dpkg don't work as advertized on the dependency issue, in
particular during upgrade (it does not check if the virtual
dependdencies are still fullfilled by the new package). I have filled a
bug against dpkg, but was mostly ignored.
In the light of this, we can :
o delay the libdir move until dpkg is fixed.
o fix dpkg ourselves (well, myself maybe) and then do the libdir move.
o do the libdir move and hurry to rebuild the libraries.
BTW, i think this also applies to our current scheme.
When i will release ocaml-base 3.07, providing ocaml-base-3.07, and install
it, it will install it without checking that all the libraries depend on and
bytecode executables depend on ocaml-base-3.06.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: