Re: ocaml 3.09.0 and word from the RMs ...
On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 10:06:25PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 02:10:52AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > So, it would be nice if all of you checked your packages, and saw if there is
> > a problem and added it here, and for the approx, cduce, occurl, geneweb, ...
> > maintainers to come forward and decide whether it should go in (and possibly
> > be fast-tracked), or if we go with 3.09.0 for them.
>
> Ok, so geneweb is 7 days out of 10, and approc 6 days out of 10, occurl did
> got in and cduce we decided not to wait for, so i think it would be a good
> thing for ocaml 3.09.0 to be uploaded to unstable once approx goes in, that is
> 4 days from now, which would be saturday or sunday, so let's schedule the
> 3.09.0 upload to unstable for next monday, does that sound reasonable to
> everyone involved ?
Ok, i modified both ledit and ocaml so they don't have hard-coded 3.09.0 all
over, please have a look at what i did and comment.
Basically, there is the easy cases, like ledit, where only the control files
needed changing, and i did add a :
dh_gencontrol -i -- -VF:OcamlABI="$(OCAMLABI)"
To modify this, this means we cannot anymore build-depend on the right version
of the ocaml abi, but i think this should be ok, we just need to wait for
ocaml to be built and installed on each arch before going ahead with the rest
of them.
Mmm, this makes me think about something, we could just upload ocaml-3.09.0
now, and wait until monday to rebuild stuff, since the packages we are waiting
for where all built already.
The second step is to move all files that contain the abi number into a .in
file, and do a sed pass to transform all #OcamlABI# and #OcamlMAJOR# into
3.09.0 and 3.09 respectively, worked fine for ocaml, altough the patches
needed to be sed'ed before clean is run.
Please comment on these two modifications, and also note that i changed the
dh_compat value, as weell as the way the subst-vars are called,using the --
syntax and no more the -u one.
If all agree with this, we should add this point into the ocaml policy
document, and modify all packages accrodyingly.
BTW, anyone volunteers for looking over the policy and get it into official
policy status ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: