Re: omake failures (#510919)

[Stéphane Glondu <steph@glondu.net>]

Mike Furr wrote:
> [things]

Obviously, I didn't see this mail when I wrote my previous one
([🔎] 496548FD.2080608@glondu.net).

> 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).

This is what I've done. As far as Debian is concerned, only ocaml-reins
depends on omake (please correct me if I'm wrong), and it doesn't
explicitly use ocamldep-omake. For users invoking it directly... I think
it's not a big deal to make them change (as they are likely to being
forced to change some of their configuration files in etch->lenny
transition anyway).

> 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!).

I agree on the last sentence, but still thinks #1 is the best course of
action for other reasons: the OCaml syntax might have evolved since
3.09, and there is no upstream statement that the bytecode is compatible
(actually, we have an upstream statement of the opposite).


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane