Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Yeah, but in spirit. So it might actually make more sense code
> history wise to revert that commit and then adapt it to be version
> agnostic.
This is fine to me. As long as the version is not hardcoded as it was.
> Taking a look at the archive the change seems to make
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Taking a look at the archive the change seems to make sense, but I still
> wonder what Russ was looking at when he claimed in 476417 "The packages
> that depend on OCaml aren't using the versioned virtual packages now,".
I tried to do a search at th
On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 08:47:40PM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld wrote (in #495431):
> > Hmm, isn't that like a reversal of d1a22f3e1a9503f401e517dcf38ebe44c3d4cce3
> > ?
> > [...]
>
> Not exactly...
Yeah, but in spirit. So it might actually make more sense code
history wise
Frank Lichtenheld wrote (in #495431):
> Hmm, isn't that like a reversal of d1a22f3e1a9503f401e517dcf38ebe44c3d4cce3 ?
> [...]
Not exactly...
> -join (' | ', map { "$_-3.10.0" }
> - qw/ocaml-base-nox ocaml-base ocaml-nox ocaml/)
> -
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 01:10:45PM +0200, Stephane Glondu wrote:
> Lintian reports missing-dep-for-interpreter for many OCaml-related packages:
>
> http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-dep-for-interpreter.html
>
> This is because packages that need ocamlrun usually depend on a
> virtual packa
Package: lintian
Version: 1.24.3
Severity: normal
Tags: patch
Hi,
Lintian reports missing-dep-for-interpreter for many OCaml-related packages:
http://lintian.debian.org/tags/missing-dep-for-interpreter.html
This is because packages that need ocamlrun usually depend on a
virtual package provid
6 matches
Mail list logo
