On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 05:20:23PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> So what do you think we should do about this ?
Quick answer as in these days I'm moving (to Paris/PPS FWIW) and as you
can imagine I'm quite busy.
> How could we modify the policy, now that known that we don't have a
> simple .cmxa = .cmx mapping ?
>
> I could propose to enforce this, for instance, for all packages which ship a
> META file referering to a .cmxa file, but it might not be a lot of packages..
I think it should be stated in policy that when shipping a .cmxa you
should ship also the .cmx (mentioning reasons, references, ... basically
as you did in the first post here). If it is a library then it should
have a META for other policy requirements.
Then the ideal next steps would be:
0) post here a proposed policy amendment supporting the above stuff
1) (automatically) file bugs against currently bugged packages
2) finally start implementing a (set of) lintian test(s) specifically
for OCaml so that we can help OCaml maintainer in following the policy
I would say that all the points above need volunteers ;)
--
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