Selon Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > What is manualy installed doesn't count. We are discussing what's > > installed through a package manager, e.g. dpkg or rpm. > > Well, why not account for all the people not doing it.
Because we are at the packaging level, not the manual installation level. > > > Also, like said, i would really like upstream to go this way also (for > > > ocamlrun) because it is the only way which really makes sense, to be > > > sure that you don't try to run your privately built bytecode programs > > > with the wrong compiler once you upgraded your ocaml packages to a new > > > and incompatible version. > > > > But why using multiple ocaml at a time? If you want to change the ocaml > > version, you need to rebuild binaries anyway. That's what we've been > > doing so far. > > Ok, how you solve the special case of a binary only bytecode program > you have installed which is not buildable with the new version ? I submit patches upstream. > > Other distros don't need to. They provide only one Ocaml at a time. > > I use distro foo ocaml installation, compile my packages, give the > binary version to my client, and then get hit by a truck, or maybe my > harddisk dies or whatever. Once distrib foo updates ocaml to the new > version, this tool will become totally unusable. You should have made backups. > > As long as you can freely download the latest version, there is no > > reason to keep an old one around. > > That you can see. I see at least one more than the one we spoke about > earlier, and that is to have while not all programas/libraries are > ported to the new version, maybe because there is some huge > incompatibility to the new version or something like that. OR you > thousands of coq stuff that only works with the old coq whihc needs the > old version of ocaml. Then, the code needs to be modified. > > None I think. One ocaml per debian release sounds sane to me. > > Me too, but now is the time to discuss this with an open mind, which is > what i asked at first. There is good reasons and bad reasons for it, > let's examin it and make the choice based on it. We used to discuss this a lot in the past. > > > should care about this more than other distribs compatibility, even our > > > > Compatibility is important for software authors, those who ship > > binaries, I said. > > And support of older versions is not ? Those who ship binaries ? There isn't any problem with it. Older versions are ship with stable Debian releases. Unstable and testing don't count. > > > social contract says so. And anyway, we are the vanguard of ocaml > > > packaging, i guess others will follow suit if we do something :))) > > > > I think more and more of providing my own version of ocaml packages ... > > Why, there is no decision taken yet, we are just examining the > possibilities right now, try to look at it with an open mind. This is what I did so far, but I've never been convinced. -- Jérôme Marant
