Re: New dependency system.
Hi all !
Le mardi 13 octobre 2009 11:22:54, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> 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
Heh, I had choosed the status quo option so far, so they are still there ;-)
> > > [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.
The example of a bytecode program is interesting. All our modules are now
compiled without -custom. I hope to get a non-custom liquidsoap at some point,
so I wonder too how this will work with upgrades :)
By the way, is there any plan to have developpers tools for checking -custom,
and also perhaps whether -g (debug) is enabled ?
Romain
Reply to: