Re: Summary on ocaml-ldconf bug [Was: Re: findlib 0.7.1 - package available]
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 10:31:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Two news: one good and one bad.
>
> The good one:
>
> no problem for modification to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, that was my fault:
> I expected /etc/ocaml/ld.conf format to be the same as
> /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf ... yes I had not read the manpage of
> ocaml-ldconf :-(((
>
> Anyway to avoid others' lazyness mistake I suggest to patch
> ocaml-ldconf so that it output a warning or an error message if
> /etc/ocaml/ld.conf isn't in the expected format.
Well, what did you put in /etc/ocaml/ld.conf for the package name ?
Also i will add the syntax of just a lone dir as synomyn to dir add.
> The bad one:
>
> the upgrading problem is real and is a bug in dh_ocamlld (I'm going to
> submit the bug just after this mail): while upgrading to a new package
> version, "postrm" script is invoked with "upgrade" argument (in $1),
> while dh_ocamlld generated postrm will check only for "remove"
> argument so that if you remove a package, the path is removed from
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf, if you upgrade the package to a version that
> no longer need that path, the path will remain in
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf. This is just the case for all packages that
> currently ships private .so dirs and from now on will put shared
> objects in /usr/lib/ocaml/stublibs.
>
> What we can do to purge this dirs? IMO we can patch ocaml-ldconf so
> that it remove dirs that contains no shared objects (outputting a
> warning) and invoke ocaml-ldconf in postinst script of the new
> ocaml package. Probably we can also consider as a special case
> stublibs dir, not excluding it even if it contains no shared objects.
> Any other idea?
Why not hand erase them in the postinst ?
Or fix dh_ocamlld ?
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: