Re: Buglet in ocaml-ldconf
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> > on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> > to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, and so everything hand installed should go there.
>
> Agreed.
:)))
> [...]
> > > * Proposed scheme do not handle versioned dependencies.
> > > There are no problem with Debian packages, which themselves
> > > have versioned dependencies, But if you compile and install
> > > your own modules and then upgrade OCaml, there are trouble.
> >
> > There is no versionning support in ocaml libraries anyway, it is an open
> > problem that has some theoretical implications, so it will not arrive
> > that soon (and i don't believe upstream is very keen on this kind of
> > things anyway).
>
> This is exactly why installing modules under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/
> makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05, you can recompile only the
> modules you want now, and let less used modules survive in
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If ocaml 3.05 also search files under
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ as a last resort, it could find old
> modules. If by chance they work without being compiled against 3.05,
> they are usable, and if compatibility is broken, the fact that they
> reside under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ clearly shows that breakage may
> be due to an OCaml version incompatibility, and that this module
> must be reinstalled.
Mmm, ok, but this would only make sense if there is a ocaml-3.04 and a
ocaml-3.05 package, thing which i didn't want to do.
Lets think a bit motre about it.
> [...]
> > > * How to upgrade OCaml when locally installed modules do exist?
> >
> > This is a mess.
> >
> > Current upstream policy and (strong) recomendation on this is to rebuild
> > everything once a new version of ocaml is released (your upgrade), so
> > this does not make sense anyway. If it is only a minor change, then it
> > is handled transparently anyway.
>
> I don't understand the last sentence, could you please explain to me how
> it is handled?
Well, if there is a new upstream release, we rebuild, if i fix bugs and
do a enw debian release, things can work still (most of the time that
is, and if i break something, i will know about it and take the
appropriate steps)
> > > This is not a criticism against the current ocaml_packaging_policy,
> > > which is a nice document, but focuses only on packaging.
> >
> > Yes, sure, i did it in haste to help fellow package maintainer, it
> > should be expanded and foolproof-read (and spelling errors corrected)
> > before it is any true use. I don't think i am a very good writter for
> > this kind of stuff though.
> >
> > That said, there is no need of deciding on this before woody gets
> > finally released.
>
> Sure, but it is nice to have a constructive discussion, it seems to
> seldom happen on Debian ML at the moment ;)
Yes, and this discution should involve upstream also, i will ask them
about this after we reach a consensus (well i think we already have, it
just needs to be sumarized again, which i will do next week).
Friendly,
*sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: