On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 08:58:35AM -0500, Mike Furr wrote:
>> Nothing else apparently.
> We need to upload the new version of OCaml that drops support for buggy
> archs.
It seems that this is widely agreed. But I do not see this as a blocker.
The reason is that apparently we have no users of OCaml (or maybe users
at all ..) on the buggy architectures, otherwise the bug would have been
reported before.
Since the transition involves a lot of packages I prefer by far go ahead
now to unblock a lot of packages and then reupload removing support for
the missing arch. In the future transitioning would be much easier,
since it wouldn't involve as much packages as now.
>> As I've already said elsewhere, I totally agree with removing felix from
>> testing.
> Moot point as I've now re-assigned the bug to OCaml where it belongs. Also,
> since we have to update OCaml anyway, I don't understand why we would want
> to do so now. We would just have to do /another/ transition to rebuild all
> the packages on the affected architectures.
Yes, but it would be much easier since that transition won't break ABI.
It would be enough to schedule binNMUs of packages against the fixed
OCaml.
--
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