Re: Shall we state on naming (again)?
On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 08:46:27PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Where did I write this? If you think the question is pointless, then
> > don't answer.
>
> No, you did not write it, but it would kind of make sense to do it that
> way, and Georges Mariano would o so happy about it :)))
No, I'm not likely to argue on something that has already been
decided. I'm happy with the library naming scheme.
I'm just trying to find a solution to a problem that is not
dealt in the current ocaml policy.
> I don't really have any strong idea about this issue, but remember that
> it is always easier not to stray from upstream naming scheme, in order
> to not confuse our users. (Well, that is what we decided the last times
> we did have this discution).
So I'll do the way we agree about.
> > What is "some other strange stuff"? Why should I make a standalone
> > OCaml program depend on ocaml-base although there's no real
> > dependency?
>
> Well, i did see a Depends: ocaml-base (>= 3.06) in one package i will
> not name. This will most assuredly break if ocaml 3.07 is bytecode
Not a package of mime.
> incompatible with ocaml 3.06 which is something that is more than
> probable (and upstream make no guarantees otherwise, even encourage us
> to rebuild everything for each version of ocaml.
>
> Also, remember, i did speak about _bytecode_ executable. These
> bytecode executables should be built without the -custom flag, and be
> arch: all, so they will use the virtual machine of the ocaml-base
> package, which warant a strong dependency on ocaml-base, don't you
> think ?
I prefectly understood this. But Makefiles belong to upstream and
uptream decided to build standelone applications, which sounds
logical to me.
> And don't tell me we should build with -custom to avoid that, ocaml-base
> is most tiny (Installed-Size: 520Ko), and i don't think it is conformant
> with any debian policy to have a copy of this for every bytecode
> executable, not to speak duplicating the same package for at least 5
> arches.
But again, I have to patch all the uptream makefiles in order to
achieve this, and I a bit reluctant...
> I plan to start a discution on this later here, to add something about
> it in the ocaml_packaging_policy.
>
> > > older (well those in woody at least) such package that do not have both
> > > the ocaml-base (>= 3.04) and ocaml-base (<< 3.05) dependencies are
> > > _BROKEN_. But then they are in woody, nothing much we can do on this.
> >
> > I'm sorry I don't know of them.
>
> It was _not_ directed at you, just a general reminder, since this
> problem some my think i am raving about all the time, and that too
> strong dependencies are not good, did bit someone this time.
OK.
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
<jerome.marant@free.fr>
http://marant.org
Reply to: