Re: meta-ocaml out of date
Hello,
On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 07:54:04AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 12:00:45AM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:43:52PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > Sylvain,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 10:23:40PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:46:01PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:44:10PM +0100, sylvain.le-gall@polytechnique.org wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think we can also move packages/ocaml-tools to projects/ocaml-tools,
> > > > > > since there is no real upstream apart from us who are injecting things
> > > > > > in it...
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand. Of course there is an upstream - in fact there
> > > > > are (at the moment) three of them. We just merge them into one
> > > > > orig.tar.gz tarball, and build the package from it.
> > >
> > > > Well, correct me if i am wrong : all upstream ( the one who put small
> > > > files together, not the real up-upstream ) are all debian developper and
> > >
> > > The only upstream(s) are those who author the files. The people
> > > who bundle them are not upstream.
> > >
> >
> > ;-) That is why i am refering them as up-upstream authors ( it is not a
> > typo error ). It is just to make the distinction on the job consisting
> > of creating upstream source -> package and the job consisting of
> > upstream sources -> file collection -> package
>
> Well, we have an established terminology in debian. You can of course
> invent your own if you wish.
>
No, thanks... It was just an ( bad ) idea of mine.
> > > > the version of the package is tightly bound to debian ( ie this
> > > > collection of file is targeted to debian )...
> > >
> > > No, the version number is tightly bound to the date.
> > >
> >
> > Really ???? You answered this great question i am asking myself : what
> > does 2003.10.03-1 means ? ( ;-) )
>
> Please read section 3.2.1 of the Debian Policy (Version numbers based on
> dates)
>
I know it...
> > > > If this is the case, i think it is more interesting to use projects/ so
> > > > we can easily add/remove/manage files.
> > >
> > > Why? ocaml-tools is a package, not a project. I don't understand
> > > what you are aiming at.
> > >
> > > -Ralf.
> >
> > I am aiming at nothing, in fact. I just consider that is is simpler to
> > add one file to a svn dir than to upload a full .tar.gz each time we
> > need to add one file to this package.
>
> I agree that there should be a simpler way to assemble the orig.tar.gz
> (I'm working on it). But I prefer to have all packages in the
> directory "packages", and not somewhere else.
>
At least, you see my point, but after all, i really don't have any
problem with the current, packaging, i was just thinking about the fact
that this .orig.tar.gz doesn't reflect any single source, but a set of
sources.
But it is only an idea, just to talk. I don't have any personnal
motivation, it was just a proposition.
I don't criticize either...
I hope nobody take it personnaly.
Kind regard
Sylvain LE GALL
Reply to: