Re: OCaml 4.08.0 and later...
- To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: OCaml 4.08.0 and later...
- From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 14:30:45 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 26d67130-ea37-5721-75a9-16a590ad2917@debian.org>
- In-reply-to: <20190713180325.GA17025@seneca.home.org>
- References: <20190706091729.GC17972@seneca.home.org> <4f86f1e1-9077-8e25-476e-649ee3c49f4d@debian.org> <20190711202438.GB18581@seneca.home.org> <7e961add-54f3-365c-73ef-594a3b3ab2b1@debian.org> <20190713180325.GA17025@seneca.home.org>
Le 13/07/2019 à 20:03, Ralf Treinen a écrit :
>> A few words about OCaml 4.08.0...
>> - ocaml-mode has been dropped (now a separate project)
>
> I think that makes a lot of sense. It means that we should package it,
> of course, and possibly use the occassion to migrate it to elpa.
Thank you for submitting:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=933241
The "num" library also has been dropped. It is used at least by scilab
and z3. If anyone here wants to package it (I suggest "ocaml-num"),
please do it.
>> Many debian/patches do not apply and are not obviously adapted; I chose
>> to drop them for this upload to experimental. In particular:
>> - a patch to allow compilation of ocaml-generated C files with a C++
>> compiler, submitted upstream but somehow forgotten (the error being
>> multiple declarations of the same name)
>
> no opinion about that
IIRC, I added this patch to fix FTBFS of mldonkey.
>> - a patch to change the behaviour of -custom, which has been rejected
>> upstream because they don't want people to use -custom (the error being
>> stripping such binaries would remove also the bytecode)
>
> Are we having packages that are built using -custom ? Otherwise it
> is probably not that important.
I don't know. Are we OK to declare this as buggy from now on?
>> - a patch to use deterministic names for preprocessed files, never
>> submitted upstream it seems (the error being unreproducible builds)
>
> That would be useful to restore, and to submit upstream. I can imagine
> that upstream would be willing to integrate a patch that ensures
> reproducability for ocaml.
I agree. It's not urgent though (IMHO). I just have too many things on
my TODO-list to do that now. Moreover, I didn't find the previous patch
elegant.
>> - a patch to take into account hardening flags, never submitted
>
> Probably useful, too.
I managed to adapt the previous patch in 4.08.0-2, but that patch is not
suitable for upstream (IMHO).
>> - dh_autoreconf and dh_dwz fail miserably; it should be investigated
>
> I also had problems with dh_dwz in some of my packages. In these cases,
> it was sufficient to overwrite like this:
>
> override_dh_dwz:
> ifeq ($(OCAML_HAVE_OCAMLOPT),yes)
> dh_dwz --no-dwz-multifile
> endif
Isn't this a bug in dh_dwz that should be fixed instead of patching all
packages?
> I tried to build the ocaml package from experimental, and had
> two test failures:
>
> List of failed tests:
> tests/lib-systhreads/'threadsigmask.ml' with 1.1.2 (native)
> tests/lib-unix/common/'process_pid.ml' with 1.2 (native)
>
> but I didn't try yet to investigate.
Strange. 4.08.0-3 builds fine on my machine and on buildds on all
architectures:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=ocaml&suite=experimental
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
Reply to: