Re: woody freeze, CDK, ...
On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 10:25:42AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > Hello, ...
> >
> > As you have all noticed, the woody freeze is progressing, i guess the package
> > freeze will be in early september or something such.
> >
> > I would like to make a quick discution about this and our readiness for it.
> >
> > on my part, i intend to :
> >
> > * upgrade the ocaml package. This would be only a quick bugfix for the hppa
> > arch, something with the config files, and also the inclusion of the
> > config.* files in the binary packages.
> <ot>
> well, this hppa arch is spreading bugs at almost all maintainer :-)
This is normal, the package are buggy, and as thus should be fixed, especially
since hppa is candidate to being firstly stably released with woody.
> Do you know how to solve the problem? I receive the suggestion of
> upgrade to autoconf 2.5.0 but even after the upgrade the problem is not
> solved, another suggestion is to download the config.{sub,...} upgraded
> but I know nothing about what does this implies ....
> Have you other suggestions?
Well, in the ocaml case, the problem is that ocam ldon't use the default
autoconf/automake/auto* stuff but an older version of the config.* files,
hacked to suit them.
My solution would be just to add the cases for hppa, so it builds there, and
let the propper fixing of this for the ocaml team, as i don't have an idea of
what changes they really did.
What they really did is fork the config.* stuff, and thus this will cause
problems again in the future, until it is fixed.
But this should not affect anything else than the ocaml package, or do you
have a problem with it ?
> > * We _NEED_ to do on or more ocaml-task package before the release.
> I've already had a look at "shell" and "cryptgps" modules (from
> ocaml-programming.de) and I have intention to package them ASAP.
Err i was speaking of a 'group' pseudo package, or maybe the new way of doing
things, not any package using ocaml.
BTW? i am looking into ledit, that is unless someone wants to submit a patch
for linking ocaml against the BSD'ish libreadline replacement.
> > Ok, that is the situation for now. Now , what do we plan to do with the CDK
> > stuff ? Did some of you already have a look at it ? I did have a look at the
> > included software, and there is some we already package, and some not. Should
> > we have a task-cdk package ? Should we build all this from only one source
> > tarball ? (more than one maintainer is involved in that). Or build it
> > separatedly as we have done for now.
> I think that is better to keep separated the various package composing
> CDK and build a metapackage as usual. Smaller package are easier to
> maintain.
> Anyway .. I have not a look at CDK yet.
Yes, but that would mean packaging all stuff that is in the CDK.
> FYI: I have added the pxp manual in both ps and html version to
> ocaml-pxp package and I have added the findlib manual to the
> ocaml-findlib package.
Nice, ...
> Cheers (from Debian1 and LSM)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: