Re: New ocaml-3.06 packages to test.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:35:29PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
>
> > > Nevermind. I can install ocaml in /usr/local anyway.
> >
> > No, i will try to do it as properly as possible, but remember, the
> > idea
> > was to have only one version of ocaml installed at the same time, you
> > were the principal advocate of this, so i don't know why you turned
> > around right now.
>
> Yes, but I'm sorry I don't understand the reasons for the changes
> in the packaging. If this is about build-dependencies problems,
> I4d personaly prefer that we use the ocaml >> solution temporarily
> until 3.07 is out.
Yes, we could wait for ocaml 3.07, but we would encounter the same
problems then. Anyway, using ocaml-3.06 + the ocaml dummy wrapper would
give you the exact same stuff installed as ocaml does right now, so it
should not break anything, with the added benefit of being able to
upload a ocaml-3.06 3.06-16 package and not have it interfere with the
ocaml 3.06-15 which is the one which will enter testing, unless some RC
bugs are found with it.
And i will not reupload ocaml-3.06 3.06-16 until i have everything
right, but i cannot work much on it right now.
> I always adviced to wait until 3.07 is out to
> have a clean solution. Of course, my opinion is not autoritative.
> My apologies again for my bad mood.
No problem, just keep cool, and everything will work out fine, even the
new ocaml_packaging_policy will be more to your liking :)))
> If you want to ship a cvs snapshot, we'll surely have to think of
> such a solution.
Mmm, i am not sure i will be doing it finally, or maybe just for me
personally to see what goes wrong and what not, and anyway, we can just
append -snapshot, or -cvs to those, without having to change the
ocaml-3.06 ones. I don't really like to rename those, Well, ok for the
/usr/bin stuff, but the manpages, there are a whole lot of them. And
does it make sense to have multiple versions of the emacs stuff
installed at the same time ?
> > But again, let me think more about it when i have more time, and don't
> > do things to quickly.
>
> I'm going to think about a solution.
Ok, there is no urgency though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: