Re: on the 30 FTBFS bugs - let's slow down a bit
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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.
>
The kind of errors we can have with dh_ocaml are "module … re-exported …".
This is a very good thing and I'm happy that it spotted that out. It gives
us the ability to avoid situations such as ocaml-ssl when it used to
export Unix and leaded to non-catchable exceptions.
Having that said, I really don't see any problem in moving all packages to
dh_ocaml. If the uploader feels confident and checks the generated
dependencies, then he can enable them in the debian/control file.
Otherwise, he has to keep the old hand written dependencies. That way,
dh_ocaml will only spot re-exported modules.
Remaining bugs of dh_ocaml are, sort of, harmless and there is already
some bugfixes in the git repository.
As an example of things "going well", there is lablgtk2 which have been
successfully converted to full dh_ocaml. AFAIK, this is one of the most
complex lib-packages that we have. bin-packages are not relevant for this
dh_ocaml transition.
Cheers,
--
Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي
http://dogguy.org/
Reply to: