Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Dynamically evaluating OCaml code
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Christophe TROESTLER <Christophe.Troestler@u...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: GODI
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de> wrote:
> 
> On Die, 2004-04-13 at 20:07, Christophe TROESTLER wrote:
> > On 13 Apr 2004, Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > However, I can imagine we could have "GODI Light" that assumes there is
> > > already a working O'Caml installation, and that only installs the
> > > missing parts. This is not impossible. (Actually, I have a similar idea
> > > on my TODO list, namely to allow the usage of a CVS OCaml version.)
> > 
> > Well, I haven't had a look to GODI internals but IMHO I think it is
> > better that GODI exports some API that the Debian Package system could
> > use to make known to GODI what he has installed.
> 
> So you would like to virtually add the Debian packages to GODI. In
> principle, this is no problem for all findlib-based packages, just add
> the Debian directory to the findlib path in findlib.conf. However, this
> works only when there is no signature conflict (e.g. Debian's Pervasive
> module has the same signature as GODI's). I don't know if this is the
> case.

Sven should say better what is possible but my idea is that GODI and
the Debian package system talk to each other.  So there should NOT be
two Pervasives modules.  If the GODI (Debian) package is installed,
the other Ocaml packages should make use of it.  If GODI wants to
recompile some Debian Package, either (1) delegate the task to the
Debian package manager (say there is a new version of the package
available or else use dpkg to download and build from source) or (2)
consider Debian packages as "on hold" and refuse the GODI operation.

That requires a correspondance between package names on the two sides
-- thus some dialog with the Debian maintainers -- but it is a good
idea not to have different names for a given package anyway...

My 2¢,
ChriS

-------------------
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