Re: roadmap to OCaml >> 3.11 in Lenny+1
On 15-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
>
> --uZ3hkaAS1mZxFaxD
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:37:23PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On 09-02-2009, St=E9phane Glondu <steph@glondu.net> wrote:
>> > Sylvain Le Gall a =E9crit :
>> >> - Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha.
>> >> Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream
>> > Concerning arm: it will be deprecated (IIUC) in favour of armel in
>> > Lenny+n (with n >=3D 1) (which currently hasn't got a native compiler, =
> see
>> > upstream bug #3746).
><snip>
>> Anyway, if we can produce a working ocamlopt for arm, we should do it
>> even if it will be deprecated in Lenny+n (remember n can be a big
>> number).
>
> Actually, it seems that n=3D1, according to [1]. Hence, even though I
> haven't checked with the release team, my guess is that 'arm' should
> not be mentioned any longer in architecture lists. This is way I
> haven't added this point to the 3.11 checklist [2].
>
> I have the same perplexities of others about adding back IA64 and
> alpha, maybe we can postpone this?
>
> Cheers.
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/02/msg00003.html
> [2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCaml311Migration
>
Since this point doesn't collect the expected "yes"-vote, I agree to
postpone it for later (maybe in-between 3.11.0 and 3.11.1 if possible).
But I think we should keep and not just discard it, having ocamlopt on
these arches remains a goal (at least on arm/armel).
Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall
Reply to: