Re: Counter proposal for the multiple ocaml installed
En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
> If i introduce a new ocaml version, ocaml 3.07, without necessarily
> removing the old one, then the new ocaml 3.07 packages can flow into
> testing without breaking the old packages. The same goes for the
So if I read correctly in your mind, the transition would happen
like this:
- ocaml 3.06 is in debian
- you upload ocaml3.07 (version within the name). This package
provides ocaml-3.07 and ocaml-base-3.07
- we recompile packages against ocaml-3.07 and ocaml-base-3.07
- when completed, we bump ocaml to 3.07 and remove ocaml3.07
I made assumption with respect to what you said, am I correct?
> libraries and bytecode executbales, which little by little will flow
> into testing. This ease the transition from one release to the next,
> without a brutal change as we have now, which results in having to
> wait
> for a fixed postgreSQL for ocaml 3.06 to enter testing, and we are now
> many month after the ocaml 3.06 release. The possibility to easily
But the postgres problem happens at the end of the transition
so we cannot avoid the problem anyway.
> provide a CVS snapshot (which is a good thing, like a mail from
> jacques
> in the caml list this morning shows you) is just an added benefit. The
> second added benefit, is that user having installed stuff into the
> ocaml
> 3.06 libdir will not have their setup broken by a ocaml 3.07 upload.
User must not do manual install in /usr/lib/ocaml; /usr/local/lib/ocaml
is there for that propose.
> Sure, in the future, they should install to /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.06,
> but this is not yet practical with the current ocaml which knows only
> about one path.
>
> Then, when the transition is complete, we just phase out the older
> ocaml
> version, or something such.
>
> > > - We move the libdir to /usr/lib/ocaml/<version_number>
> > > - If we package ocaml-cvs, the libdir will be
> > > /usr/lib/ocaml/cvs-<date> and the binaries will go into
> > > /usr/bin/<name>-cvs-<date>. We can even remove the date if
> needed.
> > > Naturally, no libraries will be built for the cvs version of
> > > ocaml.
> >
> > Without the date would be better.
>
> But this would mean only one available cvs snapshot. But it would be
> cleaner and easier all right.
Yes.
> > > Would this, if you compare it point to point to your proposal, not
> > > sound
> > > more clean and logical ?
> >
> > Under the conditions I mentioned, yes.
>
> And what about my counter proposal to your conditions ?
For transitional purpose, I agree.
> > > The only difficulty is moving libraries to the new ocamllib dir,
> and
> > > this can be done by simply rebuilding the libraries with the new
> ocaml
> > > package. Since i will bump the ocaml-3.06 virtual package, it will
> not
> > > be possible for old libraries to install alongside this new
> package.
> >
> > Remember that Cameleon has not entered unstable yet.
>
> What has that to do with it ?
It will not even be installable when entering unstable.
> > > Total change for libraries :
> > >
> > > o need to change dependencies by bumping it to 3.06.1
> >
> > Huh?
>
> So that the packages built for ocaml 3.06 with the old libdir will not
> be installable alongside the new ocaml 3.06 with the new libdir.
>
> Also consider, i could use the exact same scheme mentioned above for
> the
> old libdir -> new libdir transition. I simply upload ocaml-3.06, and
> ocaml providing ocaml-3.06.1, and you will never even notice.
Maybe ocaml-3.06-7 would be better and would reflect more the
Debian version of the transition?
> > > o need to rebuild the package.
> >
> > Of course.
>
> Ideally, a debian/rules for libraries where you could change the
> default
> ocaml to use by one variable only will allow users to rebuild for
> their
> use (with the cvs snapshot for example) without needing to much
> change.
OK.
> > > Is this too much asking ?
> > >
> > > That said, even if we don't have multiple versions of ocaml
> installed,
> > > then we still gain by doing this, in making things easier for the
> > > people hand installing stuff.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> :)))
No, I'm not nitpicking. I want to be convinced before agreeing with
anything :p
Cheers,
--
Jérôme Marant <jerome@marant.org>
<jerome.marant@free.fr>
http://marant.org
Reply to: