From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@sympa.inria.fr Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.104]) by sympa.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8B9B7F89F for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 09:41:20 +0100 (CET) Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of rich@annexia.org) identity=pra; client-ip=80.68.91.176; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="rich@annexia.org"; x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible Received-SPF: Pass (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: domain of rich@annexia.org designates 80.68.91.176 as permitted sender) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=80.68.91.176; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="rich@annexia.org"; x-sender="rich@annexia.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible; x-record-type="v=spf1" Received-SPF: None (mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr: no sender authenticity information available from domain of postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org) identity=helo; client-ip=80.68.91.176; receiver=mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr; envelope-from="rich@annexia.org"; x-sender="postmaster@furbychan.cocan.org"; x-conformance=sidf_compatible X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AmEDALNAMVNQRFuwl2dsb2JhbABZhU+BEcAcAwKBHxYOAQEBAQEIFgc8giUBAQEEDCYBRhALGAkTBwsPBSghiBABzwgXhXuIbgeDJIEUBJhMlCKBPj0 X-IPAS-Result: AmEDALNAMVNQRFuwl2dsb2JhbABZhU+BEcAcAwKBHxYOAQEBAQEIFgc8giUBAQEEDCYBRhALGAkTBwsPBSghiBABzwgXhXuIbgeDJIEUBJhMlCKBPj0 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,727,1389740400"; d="scan'208";a="54000715" Received: from furbychan.cocan.org ([80.68.91.176]) by mail3-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA; 25 Mar 2014 09:41:19 +0100 Received: from rich by furbychan.cocan.org with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WSMv7-0006uT-8U; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:41:17 +0000 Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 08:41:17 +0000 From: "Richard W.M. Jones" To: =?iso-8859-1?B?VPZy9ms=?= Edwin Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Message-ID: <20140325084117.GC21875@annexia.org> References: <532F8D40.4030007@riken.jp> <20140324083301.GE10374@annexia.org> <532FF7C6.8010608@riken.jp> <20140324110120.GM3162@annexia.org> <20140324110207.GA18751@annexia.org> <53307B19.9090907@etorok.net> <20140324221824.GF10374@annexia.org> <5330B457.6010309@etorok.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <5330B457.6010309@etorok.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Anybody interested in creating binary RPMs for each official release of the compiler? On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:40:23AM +0200, Török Edwin wrote: > Since ocaml4* doesn't exist in RHEL/CentOS, then it doesn't conflict. > Also it seems gcc uses the same convention, at least I see a gcc44 and a gcc package, so as long as > ocaml4* wouldn't install conflicting binaries it might work, wouldn't it? You can bend the rules and do stuff which obviously conflicts with the intended policy even if it doesn't strictly break it, but I'm not going to be a part of that when you can use an external repo instead. You'd still have to rename the executables (eg. /usr/bin/ocamlopt4), or you'll be causing a support headache for people who pay for RHEL and install EPEL and then install conflicting packages without really understanding what they are doing. Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat