[luther@debian.org: Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables]
----- Forwarded message from Sven Luther <luther@debian.org> -----
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 07:09:10 +0200
From: Sven Luther <luther@debian.org>
To: skaller <skaller@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Nicolas Pouillard <nicolas.pouillard@gmail.com>,
debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org, Nicolas.Pouillard@inria.fr,
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
Subject: Re: "weird" naming convention for ocamlbuild executables
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:42:12AM +1000, skaller wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 14:32 +0200, Nicolas Pouillard wrote:
> > On 6/16/07, Sven Luther <luther@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > > I like this new solution too. The plain name (the optimized one), could
> > > be made an alternative, or even better yet, we could implement
> > > the scheme we used to speak about a bit in the past years, where a
> > > alternative-like mechanism allowed for system wide selection of either
> > > all native binaries, or all bytecode ones, or individual overrides for
> > > selected executables.
>
> Debian has little choice but to make executable with the same
> names are Inria provides. Ocamlopt.opt is the native code version
> of the native code compiler and that's it.
>
> Debian isn't the only user of the ocaml compilers. Other people
> write scripts that depend on the names Inria uses and Debian
> must reflect that.
>
> > > This would allow to try somehow embedding the version number in the
> > > ocaml executables too, and so allow full parallel installation of ocaml
> > > packages.
> > >
> >
> > I would also like that parallel installation of ocaml (to ensure
> > correctness of dependencies, and maximize availability of packages).
>
> What is required is a virtual package mechanism, something like:
>
> 1. Concrete packages for ocaml-3.09, ocaml-3.10 .. etc
> which do not conflict.
>
> 2. A single virtual package ocaml-latest which choses the
> latest ocaml.
>
> 3. Virtual packages for ocaml-3.09, ocaml-3.10 etc which
> DO conflict.
>
> 4. A single package for ocaml which choses the latest virtual
> package.
>
> SO .. you can install ANY SET of concrete packages.
> If you install the virtual ocaml-latest, it upgrading it
> installs a new concrete ocaml, but doesn't remove any old ones.
>
> You can only install ONE virtual package from set (3),
> but usually you won't, you'll install (4) instead.
Notice that the sole reason for keeping it a virtual package, and not
going the renaming way, is because of the heaviness of NEW handling
(which was abysmally worse at the time of when we took this decision
over the current situation, with months passing without notice of what
was going on).
Then we can mirror what is done for the kernel package, which suffer
from a similar situation, not sure if the -latest package is the one
really needed, or if we can go away with something else.
This also mean importing versioned copies of all the libraries too.
Friendly,
Sven LUther
----- End forwarded message -----
--
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
Reply to: