Hi,
when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
/var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAI
[sorry for posting twice, i forgot to remove unwanted headers so
the previous mail appears inside an unrelated thread]
Hi,
when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
/var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is pr
Hi,
when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
/var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMA
[sorry for posting twice, i forgot to remove unwanted headers so
the previous mail appears inside an unrelated thread]
Hi,
when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
/var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is p
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
> I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
... and here is a modified version to
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> let sup_list src remove =
> let rec f collected = function
> | [] -> collected
> | head::tail -> if List.exists (eq_line head) remove then f collected
> tail else f ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) tail in
> f [] src
better:
let
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:38:26AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > let sup_list src remove =
> > let rec f collected = function
> > | [] -> collected
> > | head::tail -> if List.exists (eq_line head) remove then f colle
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 06:51:58PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
> I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
>
Ok, i will look into it and fix th
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:15:36PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:38:26AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > let sup_list src remove =
> > > let rec f collected = function
> > > | [] -> collected
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
Testing scripts have been turned off anyway ...
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL P
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
>
> Testing scripts have been turned off anyway ...
That was what i was saying.
-(altough i don't unde
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:28:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
> >
> > Testing scripts have been t
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:11:48AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:28:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > package. It will be too
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:16:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > -(altough i don't understand why, and especially why woody has not yet
> > > been released).
> >
> > RC bugs in base and standard in woody.
>
> But zhere the plan not to let the not base and standard stuff evolve
> until all RC
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:06:31PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:16:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > > -(altough i don't understand why, and especially why woody has not yet
> > > > been released).
> > >
> > > RC bugs in base and standard in woody.
> >
> > But
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
Did he gave some reasons?
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
>> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> Did he gave some reasons?
to quote him :
"The ld.conf mechanism was modeled after the /etc/ld.so.conf file used
by the Unix dynamic lo
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> What do you all thing about it ?
I basically buy Xavier's argument. I had quite a bit of problems with
ocaml not finding .so files, etc. and had to go learn how ocaml-ldconf
worked. :-)
I have the impressio
What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
for the hand-installed one disappears. This means that you
have to learn ocaml-ldconf to understand what is happening...
I don't by
Claudio Sacerdoti Coen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you install
> a package by hand (Bad Thing TM), the next time you install an
> ocaml debian package the entry for the hand-installed one
> disappears. This means that you have to learn o
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
> for the hand-installed one disappears. This means that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
>> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
>> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
>> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
>> for t
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:41:34PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
[...]
> his suggestion :
> "So, to summarize, I strongly suggest the following approach for RPMs
> or Debian packages:
> - The main Caml package can add one or two lines to ld.conf,
> e.g. /var/lib/ocaml/shlibs (for libraries installed
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> benefit from some more transparency.
See the ongoing discussion on debian-qa. I'm amazed.
Enough said.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
--
To UNSUBSCRIB
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> What do you all thing about it ?
I already replied on the ocaml ML, anyway: I think that the better
solution is to have all .so files in a single directory (maybe
/usr/lib/ocaml itself or
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:14:39AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
> >
> > What do you all thing about it ?
>
> I basically buy Xavier's argument. I had quite a bit of problems with
> ocaml not finding .so fil
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
> for the hand-installed one disappears. This means that
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Claudio Sacerdoti Coen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you install
> > a package by hand (Bad Thing TM), the next time you install an
> > ocaml debian package the entry for
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > What do you mean? findlib already manages ld.conf correctly, adding
> > > and removing lines. The problem is findlib used by hand + ocaml
> > > debian packages.
> >
> > findlib touches /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf, which is a generate
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Then you simply didn't understand how it really works.
I think that Claudio was talking about the fact that after modifing
/etc/ocaml/ld.conf you have to invoke ocaml-ldconf which is not really
intuitive. One usually expects that modif
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not sure. The ocamlfind manpage gives
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib as an example. It may be as simple as
> adjusting the default /etc/ocamlfind.conf to point to
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml instead of /usr/lib/ocaml.
Uhm this is
> or are you telling me you did read neither of those,
> nor the discution we had here about it previously, nor even the comment
> on top of the /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf file ?
Coold down.
Speacking for myself and not for him, I read the documentation but I
usually don't read/understand every ma
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:16:04AM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > or are you telling me you did read neither of those,
> > nor the discution we had here about it previously, nor even the comment
> > on top of the /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf file ?
>
> Coold down.
No problem, i was just bein
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:01PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:41:34PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
> [...]
> > his suggestion :
> > "So, to summarize, I strongly suggest the following approach for RPMs
> > or Debian packages:
> > - The main Caml package can add one or tw
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:38:05PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> > install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> > the next time you install an ocaml debian pack
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> >> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> >> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:39:23AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Then you simply didn't understand how it really works.
>
> I think that Claudio was talking about the fact that after modifing
> /etc/ocaml/ld.conf you have to inv
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:10:37AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
> >
> > What do you all thing about it ?
>
> I already replied on the ocaml ML, anyway: I think that the better
> soluti
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, and so everything hand installed should go there.
Agreed.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> But going for Xavier's 'only true Unix way', remember that you have to
> run ldconfig once you have changed /etc/ld.conf, so it is not that
> counter intuitive. And there is a warning on top of /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
> about this, if i reme
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I ran into this myself. I'd be nice if hand installed
>> packages were supported easily (through findlib or other ways),
>> since we can't expect all ocaml packages to have .debs.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:36:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I think /var/... is not the rigth place, at least regarding policy.
me too, that was only an example ..
> /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs should be ok with me (and have
> /usr/local/ocaml/shlibs for local installed packages).
agreed.
Cheers.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:11:50AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I ran into this myself. I'd be nice if hand installed
> >> packages were supported easily (through findli
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> > on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> > to /etc/
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is exactly why installing modules under
>> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05,
>> you can recompile only the modules you want now, and let less used
>> modules survive in /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If ocaml 3.05 also
>
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:59:29AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is exactly why installing modules under
> >> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05,
> >> you can recompile only the modules you want now, and let less us
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > But going for Xavier's 'only true Unix way', remember that you have to
> > run ldconfig once you have changed /etc/ld.conf, so it is not that
> > counter intuitive.
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:54:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > is not clear that you have to rerun ocaml-ldconf after changing
> > /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, IMHO.
>
> Ok, i will change it (but you could have told me before woody freeze
> time)
Sure, the only problem is that I read that comment only a
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 06:55:33PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
> I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
... and here is a modified version t
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> let sup_list src remove =
> let rec f collected = function
> | [] -> collected
> | head::tail -> if List.exists (eq_line head) remove then f collected tail else
>f (collected@[head]) tail in
> f [] src
better:
let s
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:38:26AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > let sup_list src remove =
> > let rec f collected = function
> > | [] -> collected
> > | head::tail -> if List.exists (eq_line head) remove then f coll
On Sun, May 12, 2002 at 06:51:58PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> when ocaml-ldconf is called with -r flag (to remove paths),
> /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf is written top-down; as a workaround,
> I suggest to call it twice, so that paths order is preserved.
>
Ok, i will look into it and fix t
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 10:15:36PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 08:38:26AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 01:39:31AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> > > let sup_list src remove =
> > > let rec f collected = function
> > > | [] -> collected
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
Testing scripts have been turned off anyway ...
--
Jérôme Marant
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
>
> Testing scripts have been turned off anyway ...
That was what i was saying.
-(altough i don't und
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:28:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > > package. It will be too late for the woody release though.
> >
> > Testing scripts have been
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:11:48AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 08:28:32AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:42:28PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 01:36:06PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > >
> > > > package. It will be too
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:16:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > -(altough i don't understand why, and especially why woody has not yet
> > > been released).
> >
> > RC bugs in base and standard in woody.
>
> But zhere the plan not to let the not base and standard stuff evolve
> until all R
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:06:31PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:16:11PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > > > -(altough i don't understand why, and especially why woody has not yet
> > > > been released).
> > >
> > > RC bugs in base and standard in woody.
> >
> > But
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
Did he gave some reasons?
Denis
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
>> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> Did he gave some reasons?
to quote him :
"The ld.conf mechanism was modeled after the /etc/ld.so.conf file used
by the Unix dynamic l
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> What do you all thing about it ?
I basically buy Xavier's argument. I had quite a bit of problems with
ocaml not finding .so files, etc. and had to go learn how ocaml-ldconf
worked. :-)
I have the impressi
What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
for the hand-installed one disappears. This means that you
have to learn ocaml-ldconf to understand what is happening...
I don't b
Claudio Sacerdoti Coen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you install
> a package by hand (Bad Thing TM), the next time you install an
> ocaml debian package the entry for the hand-installed one
> disappears. This means that you have to learn
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
> for the hand-installed one disappears. This means tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
>> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
>> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
>> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
>> for
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:41:34PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
[...]
> his suggestion :
> "So, to summarize, I strongly suggest the following approach for RPMs
> or Debian packages:
> - The main Caml package can add one or two lines to ld.conf,
> e.g. /var/lib/ocaml/shlibs (for libraries installe
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> benefit from some more transparency.
See the ongoing discussion on debian-qa. I'm amazed.
Enough said.
--
Jérôme Marant
http://marant.org
--
To UNSUBSCRI
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
>
> What do you all thing about it ?
I already replied on the ocaml ML, anyway: I think that the better
solution is to have all .so files in a single directory (maybe
/usr/lib/ocaml itself or
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:14:39AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
> >
> > What do you all thing about it ?
>
> I basically buy Xavier's argument. I had quite a bit of problems with
> ocaml not finding .so fi
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> the next time you install an ocaml debian package the entry
> for the hand-installed one disappears. This means tha
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Claudio Sacerdoti Coen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you install
> > a package by hand (Bad Thing TM), the next time you install an
> > ocaml debian package the entry fo
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:31:11AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > What do you mean? findlib already manages ld.conf correctly, adding
> > > and removing lines. The problem is findlib used by hand + ocaml
> > > debian packages.
> >
> > findlib touches /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf, which is a generat
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Then you simply didn't understand how it really works.
I think that Claudio was talking about the fact that after modifing
/etc/ocaml/ld.conf you have to invoke ocaml-ldconf which is not really
intuitive. One usually expects that modi
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> I'm not sure. The ocamlfind manpage gives
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/site-lib as an example. It may be as simple as
> adjusting the default /etc/ocamlfind.conf to point to
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml instead of /usr/lib/ocaml.
Uhm this is
> or are you telling me you did read neither of those,
> nor the discution we had here about it previously, nor even the comment
> on top of the /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf file ?
Coold down.
Speacking for myself and not for him, I read the documentation but I
usually don't read/understand every m
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:16:04AM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > or are you telling me you did read neither of those,
> > nor the discution we had here about it previously, nor even the comment
> > on top of the /usr/lib/ocaml/ld.conf file ?
>
> Coold down.
No problem, i was just bei
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:01PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 06:41:34PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
> [...]
> > his suggestion :
> > "So, to summarize, I strongly suggest the following approach for RPMs
> > or Debian packages:
> > - The main Caml package can add one or t
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 09:38:05PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> > What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> > install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM),
> > the next time you install an ocaml debian pac
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Denis Barbier) writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Claudio Sacerdoti Coen wrote:
> >> What I found very annoying of Sven solution is that if you
> >> install a package by hand (Bad Thing TM)
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 10:39:23AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 08:25:59AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Then you simply didn't understand how it really works.
>
> I think that Claudio was talking about the fact that after modifing
> /etc/ocaml/ld.conf you have to in
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:10:37AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:29:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > BTW, Xavier don't likes ocaml-ldconf :(((
> >
> > What do you all thing about it ?
>
> I already replied on the ocaml ML, anyway: I think that the better
> solut
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> to /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, and so everything hand installed should go there.
Agreed
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I ran into this myself. I'd be nice if hand installed
>> packages were supported easily (through findlib or other ways),
>> since we can't expect all ocaml packages to have .debs
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> But going for Xavier's 'only true Unix way', remember that you have to
> run ldconfig once you have changed /etc/ld.conf, so it is not that
> counter intuitive. And there is a warning on top of /etc/ocaml/ld.conf
> about this, if i rem
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:36:03PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> I think /var/... is not the rigth place, at least regarding policy.
me too, that was only an example ..
> /usr/lib/ocaml/shlibs should be ok with me (and have
> /usr/local/ocaml/shlibs for local installed packages).
agreed.
Cheers.
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 05:11:50AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 12:29:46PM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes, I ran into this myself. I'd be nice if hand installed
> >> packages were supported easily (through findl
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:17:24PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> [...]
> > My opinion on this (based on some other mail exchange on this thread or
> > on the caml-list) would be to simply add /usr/local/lib/ocaml by default
> > to /etc
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This is exactly why installing modules under
>> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05,
>> you can recompile only the modules you want now, and let less used
>> modules survive in /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If ocaml 3.05 also
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 08:59:29AM -0600, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> This is exactly why installing modules under
> >> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/ makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05,
> >> you can recompile only the modules you want now, and let less u
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 01:00:14PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:28:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > But going for Xavier's 'only true Unix way', remember that you have to
> > run ldconfig once you have changed /etc/ld.conf, so it is not that
> > counter intuitive
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:54:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > is not clear that you have to rerun ocaml-ldconf after changing
> > /etc/ocaml/ld.conf, IMHO.
>
> Ok, i will change it (but you could have told me before woody freeze
> time)
Sure, the only problem is that I read that comment only
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > benefit from some more transparency.
>
> See the ongoing discussion on debian-qa. I'm amazed.
> Enough
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > benefit from some more transparency.
>
> See the ongoing discussion on debian-qa. I'm amazed.
> Enoug
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:06:37AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > > benefit from some more transpare
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:06:37AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > > benefit from some more transpare
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:49:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
[...]
> > Indeed. For my information, what is `the security infrastructure'
>
> Ithink it is related to the fact that the security team will nto be able
> to make security releases for all arches that woody will support (there
> are 12
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:52:55PM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> This is exactly why installing modules under /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/
> makes sense: when you upgrade to 3.05, you can recompile only the
> modules you want now, and let less used modules survive in
> /usr/local/lib/ocaml/3.04/. If
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:06:37AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > > benefit from some more transpar
On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 12:06:37AM +0200, Denis Barbier wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 10:34:26PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> > > That said, i find that all this woody release stuff is a mess, and would
> > > benefit from some more transpar
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
