Re: [Caml-list] OCaml packaging problems

[Michal Moskal <malekith@pld-linux.org>]

On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:31:37PM +0400, Vitaly Lugovsky wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, will look into it, so you are saying to me that there could be
> > problem when multiple users are running ocaml-ldconf at the same time ? 
> 
>  No. First problem is that package could be installed BEFORE the package
> it depends on, and, so, the file will not be updated. I don't know
> is it apt-rpm bug or a general rpm feature, but I've noticed this behavior
> a few times. And another one problem is that update script must be started
> by the configuration file owner, which is a potential security hole.

General rpm feature. Use PreReq: instead of Requires: to get package
always installed after the package it depends.

> > 1) for package installs, dpkg ensures that only one dpkg is running at
> > any time and that there is only one package being configured at the same
> > time.
> 
>  And the same for rpm. But we may have a local packages as well, installed
> without packaging system. It's a pain with only one global configuration
> file.

For PLD Linux I have choosen to have only /usr/lib/ocaml in ld.conf and
have symlinks to dll*so there, just beacuse I thought it is simplest
approach. You can check http://www.pld-linux.org/ocaml.html for details.
(BTW: nice document about Debian OCaml packaging policy can be found in
Debian ocaml package).

Of course if there are local libraries, say in /usr/local/lib/ocaml user
is free to add anything to ld.conf, this scheme depends only on
/usr/lib/ocaml presence there.

> > >  But this way is native for unices. It's generally used when you have
> > > different versions of libraries, and so on (see GNU libtool naming
> > > scheme for example).
> > 
> > Ocaml doesbn't support versioning anyway, and there is no real need for
> > it.
> 
>  As well as C. Version is just a part of the library name. So, we can
> have different versions of the library in the same directory, with
> different applications linked with all that versions without conflicts.
> It's not a language-specific matter at all.

There might be problem with check sums of interfaces. OCaml is far more 
restrictive when it comes to ABI compatibility then C. This probably
isn't so problematic with dll*.so files (as they do not tend to change), 
but it will be, when native code libraries could be placed in shared
files.

-- 
: Michal Moskal ::::: malekith/at/pld-linux.org :  GCS {C,UL}++++$ a? !tv
: PLD Linux ::::::: Wroclaw University, CS Dept :  {E-,w}-- {b++,e}>+++ h
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners