Re: cameleon: byte or native?
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:17:38PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> BLINK
> [ Please, no more CC on reply, I'm reading the list ]
Come on, just configure either your mailer so it does request not to be
CCed, or procmail to eliminate doublons.
> BLINK
>
>
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >>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
> >
>
> You mentioned NMU.
Err, i think stefano did ?
> >to do the changes. Ans that upstream told you that doing zoggy as native
> >code would be the best idea.
> >
>
> Yes, but after all.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>>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).
> >
>
> Reimplement dpkg in Ocaml, do you realize how complex is dpkg ?
Well, sure, but it would be a fun project. Also i believe it would be
much less complexe in ocaml, would it not ?
> >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 ?
> >
> >
>
> Maybe.
???
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: