Re: Ocaml 3.08, sarge freeze and release schedule.
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:19:51PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 12:12:21PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > given the 10 day testing wait, and a few slack days (and the fact that i will
> > be offline the august 14-15 WE), i would strongly suggest that we put ourself
> > a deadline of the 12th of august to having all the ocaml 3.08 packages ready.
>
> My personal deadline is august 7th (this week only) since I will be on
> vacation without any network access from august 8th for 2 weeks circa
> (vacation announcement will follow).
>
> My packages are in a good shape. I've ported all of them to ocaml 3.08
> and, where needed, to gtkmathview 0.6.3. All build failures (except one)
Will gtkmathview 0.6.3 imply some other random packages we will have to wait
for ?
> are due to build daemons waiting for this or that package. The only real
> build failure is for gtkmathview on mips, but it seems to be due to a
> gcc bug which has been already fixed in the latest upload.
>
> My latest upload (a few minutes ago) were editex and extlib, of course I
> still don't know nothing about their rebuilds ...
Cool.
I think we don't really care for reviews.
> > On the legal front, Xavier has tentatively agreed to remove the problematic
> > clauses of the QPL, and i should get news of him about the emacs files once
> > Damien comes back from holyday, supposedly on begin of august. Xavier would
> > perfer to solve this with an ocaml 3.08.1 release, which he told me might
> > happen before end of august, but this will be too short for our current
> > release schedule. Hopefully 3.08.1 will not break binary compatibility, or i
> > am going to strangle them :). Anyway, if it does break binary compatibility,
> > we will have to backport the interesting stuff on this.
>
> I haven't followed carefully the license stuff, which part of ocaml in
> the archive has currently license issues?
The QPL is scheduled to possibly become non-free. The removal of clause QPL 6c
(not really used for ocaml) and of the choice of venue clause in the points of
Law has been agreed by Xavier. The discussion remain on clause QPL 3a (no
rigth to remove or alter copyright files), which is too strict, and QPL 3b
which allow he ocaml team to relicence patches under another licence of their
choosing. Consensus on these issues is not so great though, and some
interpretation of QPL 3b would allow to place ocaml under the BSD licence if a
patch is being accepted, so ...
> If 3.08.1 is going to break binary compatibility I seriously doubt that
> we will be able to rebuild all our packages for it before Sarge
> deadlines ...
If 3.08.1 will break binary compatibility, we will backport the licenc change,
and upload that. I doubt it will though. I have asked Xavier directly.
> > I am following up this issue with both Xavier, and Steve Lanagasek as both
> > release manager (no more assistant i guess, since aj dropped it) and
>
> Just ouf of curiosity: I've read the announcement, do you know if there
> exists a mail in which aj declares he is going to drop or even the
> relevant flame or something else on this issue?
Not to my knowledge, but as Steve was his release assistant, ... There is
probably some irc log on this issue. The relevant flames probably include the
amd64 GR though, among other stuff, like the documentation as software part.
> > I would appreciate a status report from everyone here, especially concerning
> > the packages that are not yet ready. Also, If you know of debian packages
>
> See above.
Thanks.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: