Re: omake failures (#510919) (and RFS)
Evgeni Golov a écrit : 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 :) Sorry for the misinformation... CVS directories were there in the past, but not any more 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. Done. 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)
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) (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
