Re: alternative proposals
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 06:23:06PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 05:48:07PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > Yes, sure, but it seemed to me that the discussion between you and Sven
> > > was drifiting from our, common, goal.
> > Which is?
>
> Uhm ... let me think ... perhaps distributing the better ocaml packages
> possible?
>
> > We must no use alternatives. There is no way to sync alternatives
> > for every binary. It is strongly not recommended (by GCC maintainers).
>
> Uhm I didn't know that, do you have a pointer?
>
> > There is currently no way to group multiple binaries in a single
> > alternative.
>
> Yes sure, but I guess that a sysadm changing the alternative only for
> ocamlc and not for ocamlrun is probably not aware of what he's doing and
> he probably deserve the obtained results ...
>
> Anyway let's consider the other idea, what have you against an
> additional binary package providing only the symlinks (the python way)?
I will use a wrapper gcc package, which would depend on the right
version, and provide only the symlinks, and fail very loudly if someone
did unauthorized ans silly things like having a /usr/bin/ocaml
directory.
I think this would be ok, for the user it would be transparent, he would
install ocaml, use ocaml and never notice, beside of the ocamlrun
question, which i think is not ok right now anyway, and most users would
use native code anyway.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: