[CentOS-devel] RFC: OCaml SIG

[Honza Horak]

On 12/10/2014 07:47 PM, Jon Ludlam wrote:
>> * then I see couple of provides that do not include scl version,
>> >e.g.: ocaml(Ssl_threads) = 9925dd2c278261461f67ee0f74f4149a
>> >I guess it means that some non-SCL ocaml package could be satisfied
>> >with SCL package, which doesn't feel right. We rather require
>> >sclname in all provides somehow
>> >
> Hmm, this is interesting. The requires/prodides are (almost) all
> generated, and they are extremely brittle. The fedora packaging wiki
> mentions here (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:OCaml) that
> OCaml "OCaml does not offer binary compatibility between releases of
> the compiler (even between bugfixes)", and that this mechanism
> "enforces the same requirements as the OCaml linker itself". I_think_
> the likelihood of a collision between an SCL and non-SCL package is
> almost certainly zero, but I should investigate this a bit more.

Ok, the hash may help in this case to avoid a false package is 
installed. But isn't it still possible someone asks for just unversioned 
provide (e.g. 'ocaml(Text)') and expects non-SCL package to be installed?

Honza