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