Hey, please CC me, I'm not subscribed :) On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:21:22 +0200 George Danchev wrote: > 1. apply the above mentioned patch against ocamldep as brought with ocaml-nox > package. That would be pretty dangerous, since ocaml-nox rdeps are exposed at > risk. Unlikely to be approved by the release team. I bet it wont be approved, but building another binary out of the ocaml-nox source with the patch applied should work? So ocaml-nox will have ocamldep (the original) and ocamldep-omake (the patched). Or one could push the latter into a separate package built from the same source, would have to go through NEW then, but sounds more RM compatible than changing ocamldep directly. > 2. prepare a separate source package to carry out that special version of > ocamldep (possibly called ocamldep-omake) in order to avoid messing up with > ocaml-nox package, and make it build-dependency of omake. Possilbe drawbacks: > new package, unlikely to be approved by release team at that point. > > 3. extend the source package of omake in order to embed the sources of such a > special ocamldep-omake and invoke it right along during the omake build. > Drawbacks: embeded source copies, security risk. The separate source package would also have an embedded copy, same bad IMHO. > 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends > are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one. Well, omake is in Etch, and I dont like the idea to drop such a package. Additionally people could be using it localy, you newer know. > While I believe that 2nd. and 3rd. would have been possible (ugly, but > possible) courses of action before the freeze (provided these blatant > failures would have not been ignored lightly), I don't believe that release > team would approve them at that stage of the release. Obviosuly 1st. is > pretty dangerous, thus we will be better served with 4th. > > Comments ? I'd go for 1.5, ocaml-nox builds a new ocamldep-omake binary. But YMMV as usual :) Regards Evgeni -- Bruce Schneier Fact Number 955: Bruce Schneier does not get kidney stones. He gets Rosetta Stones.
Attachment:
pgpTjEsZ4nmpr.pgp
Description: PGP signature