Re: [Fwd: [Caml-list] OCaml version 3.10.2 released]
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 09:57:10PM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:23:14PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 05:18:28PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote:
> > > > Understood. I wonder if there is a set of mechanical tests that would
> > > > give this answer with high confidence?
> > >
> > > Sadly I wonder the same and I don't know how to answer.
> > >
> > > Actually, if even Doligez answers that "he can't guarantee that" I would
> > > stay on the safe side and assume "no", but anyhow should feel free to
> > > test it and try to convince us all of the contrary ...
> >
> > Unless things have changed lately upstream, the position upstream has
> > always been that there is no binary compatibility between even point
> > release, and that we should rebuild everything. This was Xavier Leroy's
> > direct answer when i asked him about this back then (in the 3.08 days i
> > think), and i think it is a safe bet to assume this is still the case,
> > and rebuild everything. This should be relatively little work, as it
> > only involved buildd time with the new binNMU scheme, no ?
>
> And rebuilding by hand the arch=all packages, as long as we don't have
> and arch=all autobuilder.
>
> Since we are trying to push this release into lenny we should probably
> play safe and recompile.
Also my opinion,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: