Re: ocaml 3.06 and testing
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 12:46:21PM +0200, Remi VANICAT wrote:
> 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.
Ok, ...
> By the way, why 2 days ? I remember to have put the urgency to low...
Because two days ago was when the ia64 and the sparc packages entered
the archive. The package itself has been there for longer, but only two
days ago it was ready for testing inclusion. I think the time delay is
from the first upload day, not starting when all arches are built.
BTW, what is the urgency setting we can use ?
> > 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.
Ok, all should be fine then.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: