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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org