Re: About this ocaml versioning stuff
Selon Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
> > This is not philosophy. I'm waiting for you to explain how to
> > handle dependencies and to avoid 2 packages built against
> > different ocaml to depend upon each other, and so on.
>
> Ok. It depends on tzo different possible goals. In the easy one, it is
> easy :
>
> We only support multiple ocaml versions, not libraries. We build all
> packages with the latest official package (the one ocaml wrapps and
> provies symlinks to). There is no difference from now, it is
> transparent for the user, apart from the ocamlrun issue.
>
> In the more advanced setup, it is more complicated :
>
> We do as above, but on top of that, we build all libraries for each
> packages. We also use an advanced naming scheme for libraries,
> embedding both its compatibility version (needed by Stefano, but maybe
> not all libs) and its ocaml version, to obtain things like
> libfoo-<foo_version>-ocaml-<ocaml_version>[-dev].
*Caugh* *Caugh*
> This second step gives quite ugly names for library, so maybe we could
> also provide a virtual package with just the library name (foo) and the
> devel name (foo-dev) on the latest library version going with the latest
> official ocaml (the one the ocaml package points to).
>
> It implies some work for the library packagers, but not too much. I
> don't really know if this is worth it, but it would be the more complete
> solution.
It is quite overkilling.
...
> Anyway, please read again the first mails i sent after i did the suffix
> work. I told it was some heavy work, and that i was not entirely sure it
> was worth it, and asking for opinions (but opinions after having looked
> at what i did do).
But what does Xavier think of it, really?
--
Jérôme Marant
Reply to: