From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8546 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2013 18:31:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Sender: cygwin-apps-owner@cygwin.com List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 8513 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jun 2013 18:31:21 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com (HELO mail-pd0-f180.google.com) (209.85.192.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:18 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 10so11574577pdi.39 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.66.100.201 with SMTP id fa9mr145912pab.120.1371148276906; Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.101] (S0106000cf16f58b1.wp.shawcable.net. [24.79.212.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xj9sm17868657pbc.16.2013.06.13.11.31.14 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51BA0FF2.2040200@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:31:00 -0000 From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-apps@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [RFU] ocaml-4.00.1-1 References: <03567512-0765-4AA9-9316-92AA3D5D71EE@inria.fr> <8DC287A3-12E5-4AF7-AFFB-647396555DB0@inria.fr> <20130607141924.GC22187@calimero.vinschen.de> <20130610082700.GA28431@calimero.vinschen.de> <45D0C28C-DE97-4128-B54F-9D632D4B13A7@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <45D0C28C-DE97-4128-B54F-9D632D4B13A7@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 On 2013-06-11 10:37, Damien Doligez wrote: >> Given what Yaakov said, wouldn't it make sense to provide the former >> ocaml libs and start using a versioned runtime lib approach? > > I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean, but providing several > versions of the libraries is not going to work because they are strongly > tied to the compiler version. If we want different versions of the > libraries to coexist, I think the only simple solution is to use a new > package name for each release of OCaml. That would probably force > every library to follow the same pattern, leading to a confusing > proliferation of packages. Agreed. > The strong typing of OCaml gives strong guarantees to the users and > imposes strong constraints on linking. Stronger than can be handled > by "normal" package managers. This problem has been studied and solved > for the Debian package manager [1] but the solution is heavy-weight. > Nowadays, the preferred solution among OCaml developers is to use > OPAM, a dedicated package manager for OCaml programs and libraries. That's not necessarily practical for a software distribution. Given the nature of OCaml, we'll just need to have mass rebuilds for each point release. Yaakov