Re: ocaml 3.06 and testing
Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:29:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:24:45PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote:
>> > logs, but the lack of packages in the archive). As such i think the
>> > porters list is the right place, unless there is a buildd admin or
>> > something such i can ask ?
>>
>> IMO is better the porters list. Usually they have a good responsiveness.
>
> Ok, good news, both the missing sparc and ia64 packages of ocaml
> 3.06-6.1 are in the archive. I built the ia64 file myself and uploaded
> it, since apparently the ia64 buildd maintainer was not available for
> signing, and the sparc problem was due to the sparc buildd box (vore)
> having maintenance problem (the powersupply was dead).
>
> Now, the excuses file says it is a valid candidate, but says so since 2
> days already, so i guess next time the testing script is run, ocaml
> 3.06-6.1 will enter testing, and get more general scrutiny. Does anyone
> know how often the testing script is run ?
It should, we have to wait a little again.
By the way, why 2 days ? I remember to have put the urgency to low...
>
> I am not sure, but i guess this new migration to testing may cause some
> problems to appear as some ocaml related packages in testing may expect
> ocaml 3.04 to be there.
>
> Mmm, thinking of it, maybe the problem about ocaml not entering testing
> is due to dependencies problem, but in this case, should the excuses
> file not mention them ?
I believe it should.
--
Rémi Vanicat
vanicat@labri.u-bordeaux.fr
http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat
Reply to: