On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 10:54:13AM +0100, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> This is version 0.8.10 of February 22 of the doc-base policy. The above
> paragraph seems to be recent, the doc-base changelog entry of doc-base
> 0.8.10 says:
>
> * doc-base.sgml:
> + define real section hierarchy (closes: #109431), strongly based
> on the menu one with a few doc-base specific sections added;
>
> So, shouldn't we go for it now and inroduce the "Programming/OCaml"
> section in doc-base that we have been waiting for ?
Apparently so, can you please get in touch with the doc-base maintainer
and effectively ask if our interpretation is correct or not?
Nevertheless, all packages which are using the CDBS class or even only
the ocamldoc generation stuff which me and Sylvain set up will need to
be binNMU-ed for this to take effect, and only after the class itself is
fixed. This opens up 2 issues:
1) whether the release managers will agree to a round of several
binNMUs, if this is the case it would be much better to have them be the
very same binNMUs we need for OCaml 3.10.2. This needs to be checked
with them
2) I'm sick of having to upload ocaml to change the CDBS stuff, we have
an outstanding bug about splitting up the 2 things and I plan to work on
it. But I don't know if I'll be able to have it done in the next few
days.
In the meantime knowing the actual section would be good ...
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