On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 02:04:56PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > > At present, I can't find any single case in which using the new > > mechanism open the flank to more risks than the old one. (Sure, I'm > I agree on this point, nothing to say more about this. The new system is > to my mind quite safe (at least I don't see obvious reason that it can > fail). OK. > However, my last point remain: making the package look like any other > debian package when possible. This is the rule of the "least > modification", so that we don't use too much special ways of handling > deps. I'm sensible to this, and I agree. I'm not entirely convinced that =${binary:Version} entries are conceptually easier to understand that ${ocaml:Depend} / ${ocaml:Provides} but they are undeniably more frequent. Also the "leaf package" argument is a very convincing one. ... so, Toots, add back those ${binary:Version} fields :-P > > [1] Actually, this is rather interesting. I'm surprised that upstream > > has never thought about this: it would be terribly useful to store > > in some part of the .so a checksum which is verified at runtime > > before loading the .so. I guess there is a technical reason for not > > having done that, but I can't find exactly which at the moment. > Maybe, the most simple example is a non-custom bytecode binary > executable ? > > Let's choose headache as an example. I think you're cheating with this example, because a change in the OCaml compiler can pretty much change everything, and that's exactly why (also *before* dh_ocaml) we were keeping versioned dependencies on the ABI of OCaml itself. 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