On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:29:36PM +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
> We're actually distributing camlp4 as a separate package. To
> be honest I hadn't looked at the sizes until now:
Thanks for this list!
Would you mind sending us (maybe as an attachment?) a list of the files
contained in each package? From this list I can guess the content, but
just to be sure...
> camlp4 is pretty huge, isn't it.
Yep :(
> Despite the name, this has just been approved. You might be
> particularly interested in the very strict versioning scheme that
> Fedora adopted. For example:
>
> $ rpm -q --requires ocaml-calendar
I'll have a look at your guidelines. In the meantime, can you expand the
above command for non rpm speakers so that we can parse the output? :)
> Why does Debian put version numbers into the paths
> (eg. /usr/lib/ocaml/3.09.3/...)? In Fedora we don't do this. The
Historic reasons actually ...
> advantage of putting version numbers in there is it would allow us to
> install multiple versions at the same time, but we'd have to go all
> the way down to the -release level to make this realistic, _and_ we'd
> have to version everything in /usr/bin as well. I'm wondering if
> Debian have some deep insight that I'm missing.
... we started that way to keep open the possibility of having in the
distribution different OCaml versions at the same time. But, as you can
imagine, we never exploited the possibility. So it's actually useless.
Still, if you imagine mimicking the hierarchy (as it often happens) in
/usr/local/lib/ocaml/... for manually installed libraries that would
enable the local sysadm to install different ocaml version. But that's
just *theory*, I know.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature