On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:21:32PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> I now tend agree with Sylvain's argument ;-) If an incompatible change
> is made in the C part in a way that is not catchable by dh-ocaml (this
> is theoretically impossible, after all), it will be possible to install
^^^^^^^^^^
Did you mean that or rather "possible", here?
I agree that it seems currently impossible at present, but if it is the
"then" branch of your "if" statement is then moot.
> a wrong .so with a -dev package while satisfying all package-level
> dependencies. But il will also be possible to install a wrong .so with
> one of its reverse-dependencies, and I don't know how we could prevent this.
Currently, we do prevent it because we associate the ABI checksum to the
.so part as well, and reverse dependencies will have that checksum in
their Depends field.
> Now, I agree that somehow, the .so should be taken into account while
> computing the ABI. It's easy for native code (if not already done...) to
> put the expected ABI of C stubs in the .cmx file... which is quite
> ironic, since .so are useless for the native case ;-)
>
> I think it should be doable to automatically compute the expected ABI of
> stubs during compilation of .ml files: it can be implemented by
> compiling the result of "ocamlc -i". Actually, it's a bit more than
> that, since signatures can be restricted, but basically, that's the
> idea: keep externals with their (potentially private) types.
I agree on all this. I'm not sure it is worth the effort though.
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