A MAIOR E MELHOR REDE PRIVADA DE WEBSITES DE VÍ DEOS E IMAGENS EM PORTUGUÊS
A MAIOR E MELHOR REDE PRIVADA DE WEBSITES DE VÍDEOS E IMAGENS EM PORTUGUÊS WWW.VIDEO-DIVERTIDO.COM - O Maior Portal Português De Vídeos De Humor. WWW.ACELERAS.NET - O Portal Em Português Para Todos Os Amantes Do Mundo Automóvel. WWW.VIDEOS-FUTEBOL.COM - Videos-Futebol.com: os melhores momentos do desporto rei. WWW.HOLLYWOODPORTUGAL.COM - Os Melhores Vídeos e Trailers do cinema de Hollywood. VÁRIOS WEBSITES DE CONTEÚDOS ÚTEIS WWW.PORTUGALNAWEB.COM - Os melhores serviços de internet. Criação e manutenção de páginas pessoais, comerciais, blogs, foruns, banners. Soluções de publicidade, marketing de internet. WWW.JPEDROFERNANDES.COM - João Fernandes - Web Designer - Criação e manutenção de páginas pessoais, comerciais, blogs, foruns, banners. Soluções de publicidade, marketing de internet. WWW.FITNESSCENTEROK.COM - Exercício, Saúde, Nutrição, Perder Peso, Ganhar Massa Muscular. WWW.TRAVEL-TO-BENIDORM.COM - Tudo sobre viagens para Benidorm. WWW.MAIS-DINHEIRO.COM - Dicas sobre finanças pessoais, baseado nos trabalhos e estudos do consultor financeiro Miguel, autor de trabalhos e artigos relacionados com dinheiro. E AINDA PÁGINAS DE PERSONALIDADES PORTUGUESAS WWW.SILVIA-ALVES.COM - Página de Silvia Alves. WWW.SONIA-ARAUJO.COM - Página de Sónia Araújo. WWW.IVA-DOMINGUES.COM - Página de Iva Domingues. WWW.MERCHE-ROMERO.ORG - Página de Merche Romero. WWW.ISABEL-FIGUEIRA.NET - Página de Isabel Figueira. Copyright © 2008 portugalnaweb.com todos os direitos reservados Esta mensagem não pode ser considerada como lixo electrónico, porque inclui todos os nossos contactos, assim como instruções para remover o e-mail da nossa mailing list. Se pretender anular a informação que a nossa empresa envia, clique em www.portugalnaweb.com/newsletterenvio/afiliados (Directiva 2000/31/CE do Parlamento Europeu; Relatório A5-0270/2001 do Parlamento Europeu). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919)
George Danchev a écrit : > 1. apply the above mentioned patch against ocamldep as brought with ocaml-nox > package. That would be pretty dangerous, since ocaml-nox rdeps are exposed at > risk. Unlikely to be approved by the release team. It seems the patch has already been applied upstream, since version 3.10¹. So the patched version shouldn't be necessary any more (to be verified). > 2. prepare a separate source package to carry out that special version of > ocamldep (possibly called ocamldep-omake) in order to avoid messing up with > ocaml-nox package, and make it build-dependency of omake. Possilbe drawbacks: > new package, unlikely to be approved by release team at that point. > > 3. extend the source package of omake in order to embed the sources of such a > special ocamldep-omake and invoke it right along during the omake build. > Drawbacks: embeded source copies, security risk. The ocaml source package already provides the ocaml-source "binary" package. Should a modified ocamldep (or any tool provided by ocaml) be necessary, one could depend on that package and patch ocaml sources and compile them as needed, avoiding duplication of code (and automatic test [and enforced adaptation] of the patch against new version of ocaml). > 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends > are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one. 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. Moreover, I don't understand why there is an additional -3 in the version number. BTW, there is also a new upstream version (but it is probably not the right time to import it...). I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4. ¹ http://caml.inria.fr/mantis/view.php?id=4047 ² http://lists.debian.org/debian-ocaml-maint/2008/02/msg00023.html Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919)
On 07-01-2009, Stéphane Glondu wrote: >> 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends >> are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one. > > 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. Moreover, I don't understand why > there is an additional -3 in the version number. BTW, there is also a > new upstream version (but it is probably not the right time to import > it...). > > I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with > at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless > otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4. > For what is important, I totally agree with hijacking the package to git/d-o-m. I think Mike Furr is MIA for now, just explain that we hijack the package waiting mfurr to come back. I do however disagree with point 4. OMake is used by some people, like Jane Street, so there is at least some user around. Unfortunately, I don't have time/interest to fix the bug. Maybe an intermediate "just remove for lenny" should be enough. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919)
Sylvain Le Gall writes: > On 07-01-2009, Stéphane Glondu wrote: >>> 4. completely remove that broken package from the archive, no build-repends >>> are found, no harm done. This is my favourity one. >> >> 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. Moreover, I don't understand why >> there is an additional -3 in the version number. BTW, there is also a >> new upstream version (but it is probably not the right time to import >> it...). >> >> I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with >> at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless >> otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4. >> > > For what is important, I totally agree with hijacking the package to > git/d-o-m. I think Mike Furr is MIA for now, just explain that we hijack > the package waiting mfurr to come back. > > I do however disagree with point 4. OMake is used by some people, like > Jane Street, so there is at least some user around. Unfortunately, I > don't have time/interest to fix the bug. Maybe an intermediate "just > remove for lenny" should be enough. > > Regards, > Sylvain Le Gall On that note could we get the current omake into experimental? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New package libaio-ocaml
Stefano Zacchiroli writes: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2009 at 10:18:25PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> I'm writing ocaml bindings for libaio and am wondering if anyone is >> interested in looking them over and eventually sponsoring them. The > > I'll be happy to sponsor the upload. > > Still, this is the first interesting case of a software which should > rightfully stay on the ocamlcore forge, but which we (as DDs) would > require to be package on pkg-ocaml-maint. > > Would you mind to have a non-native Debian package with the packaging > stuff on alioth and the upstream stuff on ocamlcore? > > Being in a similar position with ocaml batteries, I've spent some time > playing with git, and having now two related git repo, one on alioth > and one on ocamlcore. I'm quite happy with the result, from which you > can take inspiration, if interested. > > Cheers. Can't something be worked out so there is only one place? Given the size of this it seems way to much overhead to split it. But I'm open to suggestions. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: New package libaio-ocaml
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 07:22:50PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Can't something be worked out so there is only one place? Given the
> size of this it seems way to much overhead to split it.
Yes, it can, but my suggestion to split was based on the fact that
both places are not suitable per se:
- ocamlcore -> not shared by d-o-m people
- alioth -> not on the forge any longer
If you plan to maintain regularly the package, I suggest you maintain
the debian/ dir on ocamlcore and be done with that (still, I second
the proposal made by others of having the debian/ dir only in the
.diff.gz, and not in the "upstream" tarball).
We can either sponsor you regularly, or let you upload directly your
package as a Debian Maintainer (BTW, are you in that keyring?).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: omake failures (#510919)
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 03:35:33PM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> For what is important, I totally agree with hijacking the package to
> git/d-o-m. I think Mike Furr is MIA for now, just explain that we hijack
> the package waiting mfurr to come back.
While stating that, it would have been more than appropriate to Cc
him. Doing that with this post.
If we get no reply, we loose nothing; if we do get a reply, we gain
something.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: omake failures (#510919)
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 03:54:52PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the
> week... with at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer
> to d-o-m (unless otherwise instructed).
Seconded.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: omake failures (#510919)
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!). As for the general state of this and my other OCaml packages, I think I would like to put my ego aside and ask you guys take them over as group maintained packages. My primary Debian machine died a few months ago, I haven't learned git (yet), and I'm only a few months away from finishing my PhD, so this is not the best time for me to spend a lot of time getting back up to speed in Debian. I do miss it though, and hope to become more active in the future. Cheers, -Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919) (and RFS)
I wrote in <4964c23c.7020...@glondu.net>: >> 1. apply the above mentioned patch against ocamldep as brought with >> ocaml-nox >> package. That would be pretty dangerous, since ocaml-nox rdeps are exposed >> at >> risk. Unlikely to be approved by the release team. > > It seems the patch has already been applied upstream, since version > 3.10¹. So the patched version shouldn't be necessary any more (to be > verified). > > [...] > > I intend to have a deeper look at omake by the end of the week... with > at least a migration to git, and switch of Maintainer to d-o-m (unless > otherwise instructed). I will then give my opinion on point 4. As said in git commit bfd1cebf64a424759df083c1fc15276cc9ea3fff: > Do not install ocamldep-omake (Closes: #510919) > > The build system of omake detects by itself that standard ocamldep > supports -modules (starting from OCaml 3.10), and do not need > ocamldep-omake in this case. However, it still installs it. FWIW, the only (build-)rdep in our svn, ocaml-reins, builds correctly without ocamldep-omake. Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919) (and RFS)
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 01:29:49 +0100 Stéphane Glondu wrote: > As said in git commit bfd1cebf64a424759df083c1fc15276cc9ea3fff: > > Do not install ocamldep-omake (Closes: #510919) > > > > The build system of omake detects by itself that standard ocamldep > > supports -modules (starting from OCaml 3.10), and do not need > > ocamldep-omake in this case. However, it still installs it. Did you also remove the binary from the .orig.tar.gz? We don't have the source for it... 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. Regards Evgeni -- Bruce Schneier Fact Number 170: Bruce Schneier's abs are NP-hard. pgpbCVKcverq2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: omake failures (#510919)
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
Re: omake failures (#510919) (and RFS)
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. 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. > 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? Cheers, -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: omake failures (#510919) (and RFS)
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
Re: omake failures (#510919)
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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
