On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:02:44PM +0100, Stephane Glondu wrote:
> Anyway, the build would probably be done with ocaml 3.10.1 (I am
> assuming that packages are always built in unstable), so would
> probably yield the "same" binary package, am I right?
It depends whether the +b1 binNMU has been performed with ocaml 3.10.1
or with ocaml 3.10.0, but I'm pretty sure the release managers will
figure this out. And even if they don't the resulting packages will then
have dependencies on 3.10.0, which will inhibit them to migrate to
testing, and which will anyhow appear as such in our status page. So no
big trouble here.
Regarding 3.10.1 yes, it has now been rebuilt everywhere in unstable.
See the output of "rmadison ocaml".
> BTW, is there a way to get pending binNMUs?
Not that I'm aware of, you should ask on -release, they will know.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{upsilon.cc,cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/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