On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 09:18:15AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I worked another bit on 3.10.0 packages, the main changes can be
> This is great work, thanks to all of you for having taken over the ocaml
> packages so effectively.
By the way, I've nothing against you working on ocaml packages as
before. Let me know if you're interested, if this is the case I can
convert your account on alioth to a guest one and we can share sponsored
uploading for your work. Same goes for the ban, I've no problem in
asking the listmasters to relax it for this list, just let me know.
> > - ocamlbuild is installed upstream as ocamlbuild.byte /
> > ocamlbuild.native / ocamlbuild (the latter being a *copy* of the best
> > executable among the former two). This breaks the convention of foo /
> Maybe these two points make it better to go for a new handling of the
> native/byte solution.
Uh ... way? I don't see this as a such broad point, just a convention
violated upstream.
> Maybe we should split out the .opt packages from ocaml-nox, and have a
> provides like in the bytecode case for providing the best compilers on
> each architecture in a transparent way.
Well, it's basically already like that: ocaml-native-compilers contains,
as a matter of fact, almost all .opt executables (or maybe all, I
haven't checked) that are shipped upstream.
> We are very very early in the lenny release cycle, do we really need RM
> approval now ?
Better safe than sorry :), but I see your point.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature