Re: alternative proposals

[jmarant@nerim.net (Jérôme Marant)]

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:

> 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?

I see. I had the impression that the goal was to bypass testing
scripts drawbacks.

>> 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?

I've looked at the debian-python archives from 2001 and I couldn't
find the url I was  given by Matthias Klose.

I did such a proposal for python two years ago and I go such
a reply:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2001/debian-python-200101/msg00033.html

Ah. I just found the link:

http://cvs.debian.org/gcc-3.0/debian/README?rev=1.9&cvsroot=debian-gcc&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup

Section "How are the default compilers selected?"

>> 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)?

You cannot force it to be available when some ocaml package is
installed.

-- 
Jérôme Marant

http://marant.org