On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 11:09:29AM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: > Anyway, i have here given a good reason for the per package cleanup, and > a good reason against it, i think mostly these are the two points we > have to weight, other stuff being more due to laziness/hacky solutions. > > What do you think about it ? I agree with you that a per package solution is more cleanly, but can be a bit overkilling if we have a lot of packages to fix. So IMO the final decision point is: "how many packages have we to fix?". Regarding me, I have to fix these packages: - camlimages - lablgtkmathview - pcre - shell _and_ the new packages of mine that still are using the old library schema, because is probably that some user have installed a version made with bugged dh_ocamlld. Have we a lot more packages to fix? BTW, IMO we can keep the fix around only until next major release because debian upgrade skipping major release is really an unlikely case and after the next major release we are sure (assuming that dh_ocamlld is now fixed, right Sven?) that all debian ocaml library packages have been built correctly. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli - undergraduate student of CS @ Univ. Bologna, Italy zack@cs.unibo.it | ICQ# 33538863 | http://www.cs.unibo.it/~zacchiro "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
Attachment:
pgpjCGU7WQGna.pgp
Description: PGP signature