On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 04:25:58PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Jerome, Sven, please, don't be silly.
> Hmm, I can discuss but I think I have no choice but accepting
> what's going to happen. Should I still give my view?
Yes, sure, but it seemed to me that the discussion between you and Sven
was drifiting from our, common, goal.
> > Please explain what kind of compatibility we are going to break having
> > as an invariant all symlinks pointing to the latest ocaml version.
> You must make sure symlinks are there which is not possible when
> they are provided by another package.
I don't think so, let's try ...
aren't alternatives enough for what we would like to do? We can just
have each ocaml package providing an alternative for
ocaml/ocamlc/ocamlopt/... with a priority number that is going to
increase forever starting from an arbitrary value, say 10.
Then ocaml 3.07 will provide an ocaml alternative with priority 10,
ocaml 3.07 with priority 11 and so on ... Installing the latest version
of ocaml will update the priority removing it will fallback to the
previous one, if any.
A drawback of this approach is that it works only if alternatives are in
"auto" mode, if the local sysadm manually patch them it wont work
automagically. Two solutions:
1) manually invoke update-alternatives in postinst script (I don't know
it it's permitted by the policy)
2) use the python way, with an additional package providing symlinks
The real problem is the transition phase because we probably will have
to change also the current ocaml 3.06 package. If you all like this
solution we can start discussing transition.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -- Master in Computer Science @ Uni. Bologna, Italy
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/
" I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not
sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant! " -- G.Romney
Attachment:
pgpX5rgTAkiya.pgp
Description: PGP signature