On Sun, Apr 24, 2005 at 01:25:22PM -0400, Mike Furr wrote:
>
> Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > Package: libgetopt-ocaml-dev
> > Version: 0.0.20040811-1
> > Severity: grave
> >
> > libgetopt-ocaml-dev lacks dependencies.
> > Some Ocaml dependencies are for sure required.
> No dependencies are required for its 'functionality', but I suppose it
> does contain symbols specific to the current OCaml release, so a
> versioned dep is appropriate. Note that it is possible to package an
I have zero knowledge of Ocaml, but I was surprised if OCaml 3.08.2 in
testing was able to use the files under /usr/lib/ocaml/3.08.3 the
version of your package in testing provides.
> OCaml library which does not have any such dependencies (e.g., code
> intended to be sandboxed), in which case, the code would have no valid
> dependencies (just fyi).
Is there any reasonable usage of this package that doesn't require OCaml
installed?
> I'm curious as to how you stumbled across this, did it break some tool
> which parses the Packages file or something? I also think "serious" is
I was wondering why it wasn't possible to fulfill the build dependencies
of the version of your package in testing, and when looking deeper into
your package I discovered this bug.
> the correct severity for this bug, not grave, since its theoretically a
> policy violation, not a lack of functionality.
I don't see any practical differences between "serious" and "grave".
> Cheers,
> - -Mike
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
