[Fedora-packaging] FESCo notes on OCaml guidelines change

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

During the FESCo meeting, there was some question with regards to
ocaml multilib-osity-ness.  I will admit to not fully understanding
what's up here, but can we address this and either fix it or provide
some response to fesco to assuage their concerns?

Here's the relevant portion of the IRC log from the FESCo meeting:

[13:01] *** bpepple sets the channel topic to "FESCo meeting -- Any objection to this week's report from FPC at https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-March/msg00995.html".
[13:01] <caillon> dwmw2_AVF, and i'm guessing it's probably not enough ;)
[13:01] * notting is here
[13:01] <bpepple> FPC had proposals for Ocaml and tcl.  any objections to them?
[13:01] <f13> no objections here.
[13:01] <warren> no
[13:01] <tibbs> no
[13:01] <bpepple> none here either.
[13:01] <dwmw2_AVF> caillon: about 100 merkinpesos
[13:01] <dwmw2_AVF> ocaml packages require: ocaml
[13:02] <dwmw2_AVF> library packages, I mean
[13:02] <dwmw2_AVF> not ocaml of the same arch
[13:02] * nirik is fine with the ocaml guidelines. 
[13:02] * bpepple notes that jeremy didn't have any objections either.
[13:02] <dwmw2_AVF> I think they should require ocaml of the _same_ arch.
[13:02] <dwmw2_AVF> otherwise it's broken
[13:02] <dwmw2_AVF> other than that, fine,.
[13:02] --> giallu has joined this channel (n=giallu at 81-174-9-68.dynamic.ngi.it).
[13:03] <notting> "Rationale: OCaml does not offer binary compatibility between releases of the compiler (even between bugfixes)."
[13:03] <notting> wow, quality.
[13:03] <dwmw2_AVF> it's because of the way interprocedural optimisation happen, iirc.
[13:03] <-- peters-tx has left this server ("Leaving").
[13:04] <tibbs> Yeah, ocaml is rather messed up.
[13:04] <dwmw2_AVF> if they fix it to require stuff of the correct arch, fine. Else, -1 broken.
[13:04] <tibbs> dwmw2_AVF: How can you do arch-specific requires?
[13:04] <tibbs> RPM doesn't actually support that.
[13:04] <dwmw2_AVF> fix one of the rpm bugs on the multilib tracker :)
[13:04] <dwmw2_AVF> or virtual provides
[13:05] * dgilmore is here
[13:05] <tibbs> I can send it back to the submitter, I guess.
[13:05] <f13> does ocamel even get multilibbed?
[13:06] <dwmw2_AVF> it has various libraries and accompanying devel subpackages
[13:06] <-- Renault has left this server (Remote closed the connection).
[13:07] <nirik> main ocaml itself isn't multilib it seems like... but some ocaml packages are.
[13:07] <f13> so it doesn't do any automagic arch specific requires/provides like c libraries do?
[13:08] --> Renault has joined this channel (n=couretca at AToulon-151-1-147-206.w86-209.abo.wanadoo.fr).
[13:08] <notting> f13: looks to be all hashes
[13:08] <dwmw2_AVF> no
[13:08] <dwmw2_AVF> and we don't get the core compiler in both versions either (nor -m32/-m64 support).
[13:08] <tibbs> There is some requires/provides magic, but those are turned on in the individual spec files.
[13:08] <dgilmore> ocaml seems to be overly complex
[13:09] <dwmw2_AVF> I think I'm about to be dragged out for food. I vote for sending this proposal back to have its multilib issues sorted out.
[13:09] <tibbs> I will send a rejection message out to the submitter and fedora-packaging.
[13:09] <f13> yeah, seems like a trap
[13:09] <dwmw2_AVF> I accidentally wrote a ppc64 back end for its compiler. It's _definitely_ complex :)
[13:09] <notting> 'accidentally'?
[13:09] <bpepple> tibbs: cool.  thanks.
[13:10] <tibbs> Do note also that these were merely alteration to existing ocaml guidelines.
[13:10] <bpepple> tibbs: will do.
[13:10] <tibbs> I don't think the original, accepted guidelines are any better on this issue.
[13:10] <dgilmore> dwmw2_AVF: you should write a sparc64 one also :)
[13:11] <tibbs> So we're basically rejecting good changes because the original document has something that someone doesn't like.
[13:11] <tibbs> Which is... kind of backwards.
[13:11] <dwmw2_AVF> I don't mind approving it with a "please improve it further" comment
[13:11] <dgilmore> we can accept the fixes,  but we should ask them to also go off and fix our issues
[13:11] <dwmw2_AVF> if it's considered progress
[13:11] <dwmw2_AVF> +0