[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: omake failures (#510919)

Hi d-o-m,

Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Has someone any news from Mike Furr? The last mail from him on a Debian mailing-list dates back to Feb. 2008 with a signature suggesting that he was lacking time for Debian². Note that the Maintainer field of omake is set to "Mike Furr", and not the mailing-list, so that we don't receive directly any bug report related to it.

Packaging wise, I really haven't done much in quite a while. I usually check d-o-m a couple of times a month to see how things are going, but most of my packages haven't needed an update in quite some time either. Thanks to Stefano for pinging me on this discussion.

Moreover, I don't understand why there is an additional -3 in the version number.

The upstream release number includes a -N, so the full debian version
has a -N-M postfix.

BTW, there is also a new upstream version (but it is probably not the
 right time to import it...).

No, the 0.9.9 is only a pre-release, it is not intended to replace at this point.

As far as ocamldep-omake is concerned, that version of ocamldep was
introduced by the omake developers a long time ago to get around
fundamental limitations in the tool. It was meant to be somewhat temporary, but getting patches accepted upstream into OCaml is not always easy (especially for new features), so it persisted for a couple of versions before it was accepted upstream. Since it was included for a significant period of time, I decided to leave it in the package until the next major point release of omake (which, unexpectedly, has yet to happen) even after it was deprecated, as users of omake may have referenced it in their build scripts (I know I had to at one point). Stripping the header line was obviously a dumb idea... I don't recall why I decided to do that.

So, at this point I would suggest one of the following fixes:

1) Remove ocamldep-omake from the package since it is not used by omake itself. This may impact users who otherwise invoke it themselves (for historical reasons).

2) Put the header line back and update OCaml.om to call it correctly. If it is in violation of policy to not ship the entire source code of the bytecode (instead of the patch as is done currently), then also add the necessary source files. I haven't looked at policy in a while, nor have I been following the debates about binary blobs in source packages, so I trust the opinions of others on this subject.

I would recommend #2 since we are so close to releasing Lenny, and certainly removing the file once it is released. I think removing the entire package from Lenny would be a shame since a lot of people use it (myself included!).

As for the general state of this and my other OCaml packages, I think I would like to put my ego aside and ask you guys take them over as group maintained packages. My primary Debian machine died a few months ago, I haven't learned git (yet), and I'm only a few months away from finishing my PhD, so this is not the best time for me to spend a lot of time getting back up to speed in Debian. I do miss it though, and hope to become more active in the future.


Reply to: