Re: fix the world, make it a better place ...
On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 05:03:41PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> En réponse à Sven Luther <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>:
>
>
> > > Not what you presented in your website.
> >
> > Yes, sure, but i repeat, these are not the package i will upload, they
> > are just interim packages, i had not the time to work on it more, but
> > i
> > will go the way of packages which will be fully parallel instalable,
> > as
> > we discussed. I just didn't had time yet.
>
> So you shall not give this pointer which does not reflect what's
> going to be.
Oh come one, i gave it to Stefano, who was not following all our
previous discution, and told him that this where the being worked on
package, and that there where not (yet) ready.
> The big problem will probably be ocamlrun and the hability
> to have #!/usr/bin/ocaml-<version>. Is it currently possible?
No problem, you just modify the script that gets copied into each
bytecode program. I can do that if needed in the debian/rules, but am
looking for a more clean solution, with a configure time switch, which i
can even send upstream if needed.
> Same thing will ocamlmklib and such ocaml programs that call
> other ocaml programs.
Yes, these are the problematic ones. Let me time to look at it and
provide a propper patch.
Other problems are :
ocamldoc.sty (a simple alternative should do it).
emacs mode (should install in a subdirectory and provide alternatives ?)
In the meantime is it more important to fix the remaining bugs and other
problems that stop ocaml from entering testing.
> So I fear that we won't be able to reach our goal.
Huh, do you believe i will not be able to achieve a nice working
ocaml-3.06 package, which will be parallel installable ? I think it is
possible, and as said, hope even to provide a patch upstream. I will do
it in a clean way though.
If this fails, no problem i can simply provide a ocaml 3.06-16 package
with the latest fixes that went into ocaml-3.06 3.06-16. In fact i have
such a thing almost ready.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: