Mike Furr wrote: > [things] Obviously, I didn't see this mail when I wrote my previous one (496548fd.2080...@glondu.net).
> 1) Remove ocamldep-omake from the package since it is not used by omake > itself. This may impact users who otherwise invoke it themselves (for > historical reasons). This is what I've done. As far as Debian is concerned, only ocaml-reins depends on omake (please correct me if I'm wrong), and it doesn't explicitly use ocamldep-omake. For users invoking it directly... I think it's not a big deal to make them change (as they are likely to being forced to change some of their configuration files in etch->lenny transition anyway). > 2) Put the header line back and update OCaml.om to call it correctly. If > it is in violation of policy to not ship the entire source code of the > bytecode (instead of the patch as is done currently), then also add the > necessary source files. I haven't looked at policy in a while, nor have > I been following the debates about binary blobs in source packages, so I > trust the opinions of others on this subject. > > I would recommend #2 since we are so close to releasing Lenny, and > certainly removing the file once it is released. I think removing the > entire package from Lenny would be a shame since a lot of people use it > (myself included!). I agree on the last sentence, but still thinks #1 is the best course of action for other reasons: the OCaml syntax might have evolved since 3.09, and there is no upstream statement that the bytecode is compatible (actually, we have an upstream statement of the opposite). Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org