On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:02:01PM +0100, Honza Horak wrote: > On 12/09/2014 12:10 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > > > >On 12/08/2014 04:52 PM, Jon Ludlam wrote: > > > >> > >>I've had a go at making an SCL of the latest OCaml release, which > >>seems to be working OK so far. I'd quite like to get some feedback, > >>to see if I'm going about things the right way. The SPECS and > >>SOURCES are on github: https://github.com/jonludlam/ocaml4021-buildroot > >>and I've been building for CentOS 7 and 6 on copr: > >>https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/jonludlam/ocaml4021/ > >> > >>Comments and bug reports very welcome! > > Hi Jon, > > great to see a new SCL, good work! I have couple of notes for > consideration.. > > * the collection name looks like it includes minor version of ocaml > as well; might be correct, depending on ocaml versioning policy, but > generally the version should only use the part of the version that > likely changes if some incompatible change comes -- thus e.g. for > python we only use two numbers (python27), not three (python274), > since the latest bugfix release do not include incompatible changes > and we can update them > Makes sense - I'll double check what the upstream policy is on numbers and then likely change it. > * 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. Thanks for the feedback! Jon > Honza > > > > >Excellent! We're working out the details for getting the scl.org folks > >set up. Once we have the basics in place, it would be great to have this > >pulled in. In the mean time, we can certainly kick the packages around a > >bit. Thanks very much for this. > > > > >