Re: ocaml 3.05 uploaded to ftp-master.
On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 02:38:39PM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 10:55:02AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> > > Good, I can release Epeire :)
> > :)))
> > If you could also build the i386 package, that would be fine.
> I'm building on a x86 at home.
> > > BTW, what is the transition plan ?
> > >
> > > - no need for dh_ocamlld any more
> > (notice that the stublibs is now officially supported by ocaml, and is
> > even mentioned in the changelog).
> > > - change dependencies (>= 3.05) and (<<3.06)
> > > The problem is we have to expect 3.06 for soon.
> > Well, this is a problem, well more an inconvenience really.
> > I had built ocaml 3.05, and tried to build my program with the lablgl
> > and lablgtk built for 3.04, and it worked fine some, but segfaulted
> > after a time for one of the files. Notice that the .cmi and .cmo version
> > did not change, but there seem to be other changes around, so trully we
> > need to have these strong dependencies.
> > I guess it is possible that 3.06 will be compatible with 3.05 since
> > there appear to be only minor changes to the parser or something, but we
> > really don't know, and thus in doubt we need to rebuild all libraries to
> > be sure.
> > > - something more ?
> > No i think not, did you read the policy document ? what do you think of
> > it ?
> I'm afraid I haven't installed it yet. However, after reading what Xavier
> said about bugs in 3.05, I think I'm going to put it on hold until 3.06.
> It is too much broken. It is probably unfortunate to have it in Debian,
> but it is too late now.
No, it is unstable, it will go into testing or even on users system,
only when all dependencies are solved, which will not happen anytime
soon, especially if we don't rebuild the libraries.
Note also that they forgot to bump the .cmi magic number, so it will try
to build with current libraries, but segfault ...
Anyway, i feel it is good that it is in debian now, so people can test
it, maybe i should have but it in experimental though, with the
hindsight i have now.
BTW, what do you all think about my mail to Xavier about the version
numbering ? i feel 3.06 should be called 3.05.1, not 3.06.