Re: About this ocaml versioning stuff
On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 02:13:40PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Selon Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>:
>
> > > I'm pleased to hear that :-)
> >
> > Ok, i can do this way then, i would like to hear from Stefano first
> > though.
>
> :-)
>
> > > > Also, to not let the suffix work i did get lost, i could release cvs
> > > > snapshot packagesusing this technics, and we can delay the move to it
> > > > to the next release.
> > >
> > > I think it should be discussed upstream first.
> >
> > It would be nice if snapshot libraries were also packaged using said
> > ocaml cvs snapshots. This would stress test the whole thing, and give us
> > good experience about how to handle this.
>
> It is currently possible.
>
> > > > I am still waiting for a apt/dpkg patch to fix the virtual packages
> > > > problem from Jerome :))))))
> > >
> > > :) I can try to fix problems but I don't know what they are ;-)
> >
> > There is the source, and the exact problem is the one reported by
> > Laurent Bonnaud. apt-get build-dep bibtex2html does not find the
> > ocaml-3.06-1 package, and does not know about virtual packages.
>
> Usually, virtual packages cannot be used alone, you need:
> Build-Depends: real-package | virtual-package
> with real-package providing virtual package.
Won't work, because we don't use virtual package as a mean for choosing
alternatives, but as a mean to provide an api, like perl-5.6-api or
whatever it was named. I am told that perl can do this only because it
is in the official policy package, which seems a bit unfair to me, and a
good incentive to bring the ocaml poplicy into the true policy (once it
is sgmlized that is).
> This is the root of the problem methink: APT won't make any decision
> on what to choose.
And he should not, there is no other alternative.
> > I think the right solution is to make ocaml-3.07 a real package (maybe
> > provided by the ocaml source package) and have it provide the ocaml
> > package. This way it would be transparent for users, which do an apt-get
> > install only, and since nobody should use ocaml as build dependencies,
> > it should not be much of a problem. Mmm, i like this, it seems nice,
>
> We can always use the old way of build-depending.
I prefer to have a wrapper package.
> > altough i guess using ocaml as build dependencies would also have been
> > usefull, but could create dangers for the autobuilders when the new
> > ocaml is not yet ready. Anyway, it would still be nice to have apt fixed
> > for this.
>
> Policy requires what I explained about, so APT is not necessarily to
> be fixed.
But it is permitted for perl.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: