On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:25:27AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > [...] but notice that if we discover some
> > bigger issue later on, we would have to backtrack in a more painful
> > manner. [...]
> I am still afraid of that...
Indeed, and Mehdi's answer is a bit naive on that: we are assuming that
everything *will* go well while, AFAIK, we have never tried rebuilding
all OCaml packages with dh-ocaml. Unstable is not the right place where
to do that, it should have been done elsewhere.
Anyhow, given that we are here, and that both of you are confident,
let's do that. And yeah, I also agree most FTBFS bugs at least _look_
trivially fixable.
Just to be sure that everybody is on the same line: I believe that
packages should be fixed (ported, built, uploaded) in the right order as
it happens with a standard transition, right? (Otherwise, I guess the
checksum database will not contain the appropriate information to
compute dependencies appropriately.) Can we easily set up a monitor page
that drives us in uploading in the proper order and avoiding to skip
over a late buildd?
Also, I was wondering whether the FTBFS where dh_ocaml exits with an
error ("interface name blabla re-exported" or something such) should
really be errors. I agree that at this stage they are very helpful, but
I was wondering what should be the appropriate behavior in the future.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature