Subject: Re: FREEZE!: ocaml compiler bug in debian? - msg#00140

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: cameleon: byte or native?

On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 11:25:04AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: > >Fix dpkg so it handles versioned provides ? > OK. Give me one hour. Ok, you've had your hour, is dpkg fixed now? :-))))) > >BTW, i choose the -byte suffix for bytecode programs, do you think this > >is a good choice ? > I don't have any better idea. Does someone have something better to propose > in there ? Uhm ... no, but IMHO it's not really better than an ugly Provides field. As you wish Jerome, both are ugly and both work :) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Uni. Bologna, Italy zack@xxxxxxxxxxx | ICQ 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney pgptOOIT8hsxx.pgp Description: PGP signature

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: cameleon: byte or native?

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 11:25:04AM +0100, J?r?me Marant wrote: Fix dpkg so it handles versioned provides ? OK. Give me one hour. Ok, you've had your hour, is dpkg fixed now? :-))))) :-) BTW, i choose the -byte suffix for bytecode programs, do you think this is a good choice ? I don't have any better idea. Does someone have something better to propose in there ? hm ... no, but IMHO it's not really better than an ugly Provides field. As you wish Jerome, both are ugly and both work :) I think the Provides is less reliable than the Depends though. I'm going to use Sven's. Cheers,

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: FREEZE!: ocaml compiler bug in debian?

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 06:56:23PM +0100, Remi VANICAT wrote: >> Well, I've just try with a newly compiled ocaml on a RedHat 7.2 >> (glibc 2.2.4 and gcc 2.96) >> >> So it doesn't seem to come from debian (nor our version of glibc and >> gcc...) > > Well, I'm probably missing something, but you haven't told us about the > results of your test :-) > > Given the seconde sentence I guess that you are able to reproduce the > bug also on redhat 7.2, am I wrong? > You are right, I mean « reproduce it », not « try » -- Rémi Vanicat vanicat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

About shared objects

Hello, What's happening if : Package: A Depends: libB-ocaml (libB-ocaml contains dllB.so) and a new libB-ocaml is being released but is binary incompatible with the previous version of libB-ocaml. How do we prevent such case currently? - shared objects have no SONAMEs - package names are unversioned. Thanks. Cheers,