This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: [RFU] ocaml-4.00.1-1
- From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 13:31:14 -0500
- Subject: Re: [RFU] ocaml-4.00.1-1
- References: <03567512-0765-4AA9-9316-92AA3D5D71EE at inria dot fr> <8DC287A3-12E5-4AF7-AFFB-647396555DB0 at inria dot fr> <20130607141924 dot GC22187 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <CBF9EE3D-7904-4D59-8132-0600CADB50CB at inria dot fr> <20130610082700 dot GA28431 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <45D0C28C-DE97-4128-B54F-9D632D4B13A7 at inria dot fr>
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.
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  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