On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 02:05:02 +0100 Stéphane Glondu wrote: > Evgeni Golov a écrit : > > Did you also remove the binary from the .orig.tar.gz? We don't have the > > source for it... > > No, I didn't. Even though the source is not technically available (in > the archive, today), there is an advertised way to rebuild it with only > free tools... IMHO, it is not the same issue as all the recent firmware > fuss. Besides, we do not use this binary any more. For Lenny, it didn't > seem worth to me to repackage the upstream tarball.
I'm not a good legal boy, but you're prolly correct that it can be in the source tarball for now. What do the others think? > BTW, there are many things that shouldn't be in the .orig.tar.gz (such > as CVS directories, for a start)... For future releases, it might be > relevant to repackage the upstream tarball. Yupp, but thats a different issue, not relevant here and now :) > > And for really closing 510919: could either ocaml-nox or omake provide > > a ocamldep-omake symlink, pointing to ocamldep? Just to make sure we > > (or actually you :P) don't break any user-scripts. > > This sounds like a dirty visible hack to me, I don't agree with this > proposal. Are there so many people hard-coding ocamldep-omake in their > scripts? Doesn't it sound reasonable to force people to update their > scripts now? Dunno if there are people hardcoding it, I don't do any ocaml stuff. But you should consider adding a debian/NEWS file, saying ocamldep-omake is gone now, so users notice this fact on upgrade and not when their stuff is failing. Regards Evgeni -- Bruce Schneier Fact Number 893: Schneier has no diseases, but he isn't vaccinated. Injection doesn't work with him.
pgp7NO7l8su0I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
