On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 03:48:47PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> An alternative approach would be to make each library build-depend on
> all of ocaml, jocaml, etc., and have it put files into
> /usr/lib/ocaml/NNN, /usr/lib/jocaml/NNN, etc.
This is an interesting idea.
Its pros are:
- we won't have neither more packages involved in transitions
- nor more packages to be supported security wise, by the buildds, ...
It still has non negligible cons though
- we will potentially double (in case of just adding jocaml; more
elsewhere) the need of transitions (one transition for ocaml+1, one
for jocaml+1, ...)
- (obviously) it will double the size of all package shipping OCaml
objects, with the corresponding mirror impact
Finally, and this is my major concern ATM, moving to this scheme is far
from being easy. All packages need to be changed so that they will be
built twice, once with ocaml and once with jocaml (or more). This has an
impact on all maintainers rather than on only the maintainers interested
in *caml.
Things are made even worts by the fact that, on the contrary of what
happens in the C world, we can't just set an environment variable (say
"CC") to change the compiler and another (say "CFLAGS") to add an extra
flag where needed.
So, *if* we want to go this way I would much more prefer to first
implement a common scheme which lets us easily change this stuff from
*all* debian/rules we have (and it won't be quick nor easy probably) and
then put it in practice to built packages twice, thrice, ...
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/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