[luther@debian.org: Re: [luther@debian.org: Re: ocaml 3.10.0 packages news]]
----- Forwarded message from Sven Luther <luther@debian.org> -----
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 10:52:06 +0200
From: Sven Luther <luther@debian.org>
To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org,
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [luther@debian.org: Re: ocaml 3.10.0 packages news]
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:27:26AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:18:15AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > I worked another bit on 3.10.0 packages, the main changes can be
> > This is great work, thanks to all of you for having taken over the ocaml
> > packages so effectively.
>
> By the way, I've nothing against you working on ocaml packages as
> before. Let me know if you're interested, if this is the case I can
> convert your account on alioth to a guest one and we can share sponsored
The alioth admins have mentioned it was much work to convert the account
to a -guest one, and as far as i know the non-guest one is still active.
> uploading for your work. Same goes for the ban, I've no problem in
> asking the listmasters to relax it for this list, just let me know.
The ban is troublesome, and the DAMs have mentioned that i was to be
banned from all lists, except those where the users of the list asked
for the ban to be lifted. I guess there is an evident loophole there,
where a few people could ask for unbanning on all lists, but in the case
of the ocaml list, i believe there is no such problem.
> > > - ocamlbuild is installed upstream as ocamlbuild.byte /
> > > ocamlbuild.native / ocamlbuild (the latter being a *copy* of the best
> > > executable among the former two). This breaks the convention of foo /
> > Maybe these two points make it better to go for a new handling of the
> > native/byte solution.
>
> Uh ... way? I don't see this as a such broad point, just a convention
> violated upstream.
Well, currently the ocaml binaries default to the -byte ones, even if
both are available. The upstream favored convention would default to the
better one, which we could achieve if we mirrored what was doen for pure
bytecode packages like spamoracle in the ocaml packages.
Not sure if this makes sense though, since there may be a benefit from
using the bytecode tools over the native ones, even if both are
available.
> > Maybe we should split out the .opt packages from ocaml-nox, and have a
> > provides like in the bytecode case for providing the best compilers on
> > each architecture in a transparent way.
>
> Well, it's basically already like that: ocaml-native-compilers contains,
> as a matter of fact, almost all .opt executables (or maybe all, I
> haven't checked) that are shipped upstream.
Yep, but you cannot install only them and not the bytecode ones.
> > We are very very early in the lenny release cycle, do we really need RM
> > approval now ?
>
> Better safe than sorry :), but I see your point.
Indeed, but you could overload the RMs by useless requests too :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Reply to: