On Thursday 08 January 2009 01:12:28 Mike Furr wrote: > Hi d-o-m, > > Stéphane Glondu wrote: > > Has someone any news from Mike Furr? The last mail from him on a > > Debian mailing-list dates back to Feb. 2008 with a signature > > suggesting that he was lacking time for Debian². Note that the > > Maintainer field of omake is set to "Mike Furr", and not the > > mailing-list, so that we don't receive directly any bug report > > related to it. > > Packaging wise, I really haven't done much in quite a while. I usually > check d-o-m a couple of times a month to see how things are going, but > most of my packages haven't needed an update in quite some time either. > Thanks to Stefano for pinging me on this discussion. > > > Moreover, I don't understand why there is an additional -3 in the > > version number. > > The upstream release number includes a -N, so the full debian version > has a -N-M postfix. > > > BTW, there is also a new upstream version (but it is probably not the > > right time to import it...). > > No, the 0.9.9 is only a pre-release, it is not intended to replace > 0.9.8.5 at this point. > > As far as ocamldep-omake is concerned, that version of ocamldep was > introduced by the omake developers a long time ago to get around > fundamental limitations in the tool. It was meant to be somewhat > temporary, but getting patches accepted upstream into OCaml is not > always easy (especially for new features), so it persisted for a couple > of versions before it was accepted upstream. Since it was included for > a significant period of time, I decided to leave it in the package until > the next major point release of omake (which, unexpectedly, has yet to > happen) even after it was deprecated, as users of omake may have > referenced it in their build scripts (I know I had to at one point). > Stripping the header line was obviously a dumb idea... I don't recall > why I decided to do that. > > So, at this point I would suggest one of the following fixes: > > 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). > > 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 strongly believe that removing 0.9.8.5-3-3 from both lenny and sid is the way to go, since such a insane package as have been put together should have never been uploaded to the archive in the first place [1]. Then prepare a new and fixed package (sane orig.tar.gz included), upload it to sid and ask release team if they can tolerate such a unblock for lenny at that stage. If they can't, well that is not their fault. There is no excuse for deliberately uploading such a compromised orig.tar.gz to the archive and then insist on it being released with lenny for whatever reasons. I personally see this as a dextrous way to deceive and bypass the established procedures. [1] Similar wording in connection with another package has been expressed by Julien Cristau on #debian-devel... and I do agree with this, gladly. -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
