On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 10:56:58PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > However, I'd like to propose an extra item to take care of during this
> > transition. Namely: moving our standard library to /usr/lib/ocaml/.
> I see no objection.
Indeed, we can consider it approved then.
I believe the changes needed are just in ocaml and really simple to
apply.
> > Finally, doing the transition now will help in spotting packages that
> > are not using the appropriate variable in debian/rules, but rather
> > relying on hard-coded paths such as "/usr/lib/ocaml/@OCamlABI@/".
> But these precautions won't be needed anymore once we do the switch,
> will they?
I don't get what you mean. My observation was mainly that we checked,
in the recent past, which packages where using something hard coded
and we fixed most of them; this migration will be the final proof that
no other hard coded paths are there.
The good practice of using @OCamlStdLibDir@ will not be strictly
_needed_ after this change, but will be good nevertheless, in case of
future (currently un-foreseeable) changes. So, if you are saying
«let's start using /usr/lib/ocaml/ hard-coded», I'm against.
> Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
> > Moreover, we can use 3.11.1 transition to stress test dh-ocaml after we
> > have add some functionnalities (like automatic dependencies). This will
> > made us wait until, at least, Debcamp.
>
> This can be done independently. I'd rather not wait Debcamp to make this
> transition (we might have other errands to run by then).
ACK.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature