Re: cameleon: byte or native?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 02:42:21PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> [ Please, no more CC on reply, I'm reading the list ]
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >Jerome, remember that is good for coq is not necessarily good for cameleon.
> >
>
> Hey! I expressed the same idea for Cameleon and you wanted me to use
> the byte/native scheme although I said it was not worth it !!
> Bah :|
I just said that if you want to package native code, it would be best to
adapt to the new stuff, and if you want to do as usual, then bytecode is
what you should package. I also remember saying that i cannot force you
to do the changes. Ans that upstream told you that doing zoggy as native
code would be the best idea.
> >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.
> >
> As usual.
Well, if i had time, i would look at dpkg myself (or re-implement dpkg
in ocaml or prove it in coq and have coq generate the proved ocaml
source-code).
Anyway, maybe we should raise the severity of the bug, after all it
breaks the install system and can render a user box unusable (as far as
using ocaml is concerned). Do you know who i have to ask on irc about
this ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: