Selon Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This is not philosophy. I'm waiting for you to explain how to > > handle dependencies and to avoid 2 packages built against > > different ocaml to depend upon each other, and so on. > > Ok. It depends on tzo different possible goals. In the easy one, it is > easy : > > We only support multiple ocaml versions, not libraries. We build all > packages with the latest official package (the one ocaml wrapps and > provies symlinks to). There is no difference from now, it is > transparent for the user, apart from the ocamlrun issue. > > In the more advanced setup, it is more complicated : > > We do as above, but on top of that, we build all libraries for each > packages. We also use an advanced naming scheme for libraries, > embedding both its compatibility version (needed by Stefano, but maybe > not all libs) and its ocaml version, to obtain things like > libfoo-<foo_version>-ocaml-<ocaml_version>[-dev].
*Caugh* *Caugh* > This second step gives quite ugly names for library, so maybe we could > also provide a virtual package with just the library name (foo) and the > devel name (foo-dev) on the latest library version going with the latest > official ocaml (the one the ocaml package points to). > > It implies some work for the library packagers, but not too much. I > don't really know if this is worth it, but it would be the more complete > solution. It is quite overkilling. ... > Anyway, please read again the first mails i sent after i did the suffix > work. I told it was some heavy work, and that i was not entirely sure it > was worth it, and asking for opinions (but opinions after having looked > at what i did do). But what does Xavier think of it, really? -- Jérôme Marant
