On 2023/09/18 09:32, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Le 18/09/2023 à 10:04, Julien Puydt a écrit :
I agree with that plan ; can you list which packages get broken in
each case?
I've attached the lists of (OPAM) packages that cannot be installed with
each version of OCaml. It turns out the numbers don'
Le 18/09/2023 à 14:00, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
In any case, I will recompile all packages in Debian (including Coq
ones) with the new OCaml before asking for a transition slot.
I uploaded 4.14.1 to experimental, and recompiled the OCaml world with it:
http://ocaml.debian.net/transitions/oc
Le 18/09/2023 à 13:32, julien.pu...@gmail.com a écrit :
Note that my opam-debian-switch workflow ignores most of Coq packages
(except coq itself), since you take care of them with your own
workflow.
Hmmm... I take care of them but some do depend on OCaml more directly
because they have an OCaml
Le lundi 18 septembre 2023 à 10:32 +0200, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
> Le 18/09/2023 à 10:04, Julien Puydt a écrit :
> > I agree with that plan ; can you list which packages get broken in
> > each
> > case?
>
> I've attached the lists of (OPAM) packages that cannot be installed
> with
> each vers
Le 18/09/2023 à 10:04, Julien Puydt a écrit :
I agree with that plan ; can you list which packages get broken in each
case?
I've attached the lists of (OPAM) packages that cannot be installed with
each version of OCaml. It turns out the numbers don't exactly match with
what I said in my first
Hi
Le lun. 18 sept. 2023, 09:37, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
>
> OCaml 5.1.0 has just been released, and a version 4.14.2 will soon be
> released. Current version in unstable is 4.13.1.
>
> I played a bit with opam-debian-switch, and it turns out that (at least)
> 35 packages are broken (at the mo
Hi,
OCaml 5.1.0 has just been released, and a version 4.14.2 will soon be
released. Current version in unstable is 4.13.1.
I played a bit with opam-debian-switch, and it turns out that (at least)
35 packages are broken (at the moment) with OCaml 5.1.0 whereas only 1
seems broken with 4.14.1.
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 10:11:52AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> On 16/10/2017 08:32, Ralf Treinen wrote:
> > one of the current blockers for the ocaml transition is ppx_deriving.
> > The current version in sid (4.1) does not compile with ocaml 4.05 and
> > should probab
On 16/10/2017 08:32, Ralf Treinen wrote:
one of the current blockers for the ocaml transition is ppx_deriving.
The current version in sid (4.1) does not compile with ocaml 4.05 and
should probably be upgraded to 4.2. This version, however, has a new
dependency ppx_derivers [1,2] which AFAICS is
Hello,
one of the current blockers for the ocaml transition is ppx_deriving.
The current version in sid (4.1) does not compile with ocaml 4.05 and
should probably be upgraded to 4.2. This version, however, has a new
dependency ppx_derivers [1,2] which AFAICS is not yet packaged in debian.
Is
Le 2013-12-03 18:46, Ralf Treinen a écrit :
I see Stéphane uploading loads of packages. Is there anything we can
do to
help? I could for instance upload some of the arch=all packages :
ocamlwc, ocamlweb, planets, polygen, bibtex2html
Any valid reason why we don't convert these packages to ar
Le 03/12/2013 18:46, Ralf Treinen a écrit :
> I see Stéphane uploading loads of packages. Is there anything we can do to
> help? I could for instance upload some of the arch=all packages :
>
> ocamlwc, ocamlweb, planets, polygen, bibtex2html
>
> somewhen later this evening, but I am waiting for a
I see Stéphane uploading loads of packages. Is there anything we can do to
help? I could for instance upload some of the arch=all packages :
ocamlwc, ocamlweb, planets, polygen, bibtex2html
somewhen later this evening, but I am waiting for an OK from Stéphane
or Mehdi.
Cheers -Ralf.
--
To UNS
Le 08/05/2013 12:47, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
> During the freeze, a new major version of OCaml has been released. The
> current version is 4.00.1 (already in experimental, the one in sid is
> 3.12.1). It breaks some packages, and many of those have been fixed
> upstream meanwhile. It seems that m
breaks some packages, and many of those have been fixed
> > upstream meanwhile. It seems that most of the times, fixes are
> > backward-compatible.
>
> please make sure that apron is rebuilt first to pick up ppl-1.0, and that it
> migrates to testing before apron gets stuck in
Le 08/05/2013 21:49, Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
>> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCamlTransition
>
> The page is 404.
Oops... I forgot the final "s":
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCamlTransitions
--
Stéphane
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-r
On 08-05-2013, Lifeng Sun wrote:
>
>
> * packages with latest version compatible with ocaml-3.12
>
package latest ver
ocaml-expect 0.0.3
ocamlmod 0.0.3
ocaml-csv 1.2.6
ocaml-fileutils0.4.4
oasis 0.3.0
ounit 1.1.2
Will take car
On 08-05-2013, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCamlTransition
The page is 404.
Cheers,
Sylvain Le Gall
--
Linkedin: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/sylvainlegall
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a
t seems that most of the times, fixes are
> backward-compatible.
please make sure that apron is rebuilt first to pick up ppl-1.0, and that it
migrates to testing before apron gets stuck in the OCaml transition.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Le 08/05/2013 14:37, Lifeng Sun a écrit :
> I am a DM, and tried to upgrade about 20 OCaml-related packages in
> my own repo. Here is a summary of my works,
>
>
> * packages with latest version compatible with ocaml-3.12 [...]
>
> * packages with
Hi,
I am a DM, and tried to upgrade about 20 OCaml-related packages in my
own repo. Here is a summary of my works,
* packages with latest version compatible with ocaml-3.12
package latest ver
==
extlib 1.5.4
lablgl 20120306
lablgtk2
Hello,
During the freeze, a new major version of OCaml has been released. The
current version is 4.00.1 (already in experimental, the one in sid is
3.12.1). It breaks some packages, and many of those have been fixed
upstream meanwhile. It seems that most of the times, fixes are
backward-compatible
David MENTRE a écrit :
> What is the meaning of "unknown" status in OCaml transition monitor
> (light yellow color)?
"good" is when all binary dependencies on some OCaml ABI are on the new
one, "bad" is when there is a binary dependency on the old version,
&qu
On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 10:55:06AM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
> IMHO, if there are any kudos, I think they should go to glondu who
> has done a good job with its various scripts (git migration and
> status page).
http://upsilon.cc/~zack/blog/posts/2009/04/ocaml_3.11_in_testing/
--
Stefano Zac
On 06-04-2009, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Stéphane Glondu [Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:01:35 +0200]:
>
>> Adeodato Simó a écrit :
>> >> Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
>
>> > Scheduled, with the glitches noted below. Please get back to us with the
>> > needed wanna-bui
* Stéphane Glondu [Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:01:35 +0200]:
> Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> >> Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
> > Scheduled, with the glitches noted below. Please get back to us with the
> > needed wanna-build actions.
> All packages that needed recom
* Stéphane Glondu [Sat, 04 Apr 2009 14:01:35 +0200]:
> Adeodato Simó a écrit :
> >> Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
> > Scheduled, with the glitches noted below. Please get back to us with the
> > needed wanna-build actions.
> All packages that needed recom
Adeodato Simó a écrit :
>> Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
>
> Scheduled, with the glitches noted below. Please get back to us with the
> needed wanna-build actions.
All packages that needed recompilation or sourceful uploads for the
OCaml 3.11.0 transition
On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>> ocamlwc is arch:all, so it can’t be Bin-NMUed. It’s going to need a
>> sourceful upload.
>
> Ok. The maintainer of this package is Georg Neis (in CC). The package is
> in our subversion repository. Georg, is it OK for you to set Maintaine
Adeodato Simó a écrit :
>> Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
>
> Scheduled, with the glitches noted below. Please get back to us with the
> needed wanna-build actions.
Thanks.
>> nmu 1 ocamlwc_0.3-4 . ALL . -m 'Recompile with OCaml 3.11.0'
>> dw ocamlwc_0.3-4
Hello,
Please schedule the attached requests for the OCaml 3.11.0 transition.
Thanks in advance,
--
Stéphane
nmu 3 confluence_0.10.6-5 . alpha armel hppa ia64 mips mipsel s390 . -m
'Recompile with OCaml 3.11.0'
dw confluence_0.10.6-5 . alpha armel hppa ia64 mips mipsel s390 . -m 'ocaml-nox
(
Hi,
I've turned our coordination page into a (hopefully) exhaustive
TODO-list, organized by round [1].
64 packages have been processed so far, and approximately 40 packages
remain to be dealt with. Since round 0 and round 1 are completed on all
architectures, all packages in round 2 can be upload
Le Wednesday 25 February 2009 08:21:11 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
> Nevertheless I wonder how that can be true, how about your executables
> on non-native archs? Either they are bytecode (and then must entail a
> dependency on oca...@abi@) or you link them in custom mode (and then
> you'
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 08:26:41AM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> IMHO, it might be a good idea to ask a binNMU for these packages anyway,
> just to be sure it compiles everywhere with the new OCaml (and not just
> stumble on a FTBFS later when we don't expect it).
Agreed, but potentially poi
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
Nevertheless I wonder how that can be true, how about your executables
on non-native archs? Either they are bytecode (and then must entail a
dependency on oca...@abi@) or you link them in custom mode (and then
you're using a practice that we deprecated a while ago [1]
Romain Beauxis a écrit :
I wonder: is liquidsoap really concerned by the transition ?
It only depends on ocaml packages on build, so it shouldn't block any
transition. I see this is the same at least for freetenis.
The source packages are those that build-dep on OCaml, and the red/green
cells
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:54:30AM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> I wonder: is liquidsoap really concerned by the transition ? It
> only depends on ocaml packages on build, so it shouldn't block any
> transition. I see this is the same at least for freetenis.
If this is true, it does not concern
Le Wednesday 25 February 2009 01:27:45 Stéphane Glondu, vous avez écrit :
> Hi,
Hi !
> I've just commited to svn a script that generates that:
>
> http://glondu.net/debian/ocaml_transition_monitor.html
Thanks !
> Our goal is basically to make everything green.
I wonder: is liquidsoa
Hi,
I've just commited to svn a script that generates that:
http://glondu.net/debian/ocaml_transition_monitor.html
Our goal is basically to make everything green.
It entirely relies on the contents of a mirror, so it shows the status
of the transition from a user's point of view. The page i
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 21:29:31 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Julien Cristau a écrit :
> > arch-independant packages are not rebuilt by binary NMUs, so you should
> > ignore those packages in the script.
>
> Is this correct? It doesn't seem to me: a package containing only
> .cmo/.cmi/.cma (ie
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
Wait, our packages containing .cmo/.cmi/.cma usually are arch: any, take
for example -dev packages on non-native archs. So I think in practice
your case apply only to packages which are indeed arch:all, and indeed
we can't rely on binNMU for that. Nevertheless I think
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:29:31PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > arch-independant packages are not rebuilt by binary NMUs, so you should
> > ignore those packages in the script.
> Is this correct? It doesn't seem to me: a package containing only
> .cmo/.cmi/.cma (ie. bytecode objects) and text
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 09:29:31PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Julien Cristau a écrit :
> >> Note that all architectures are not listed for each package: I took
> >> archs where at least one binary package exists (or all if one
> >> arch-independant binary package exists).
> >>
> > arch-ind
Julien Cristau a écrit :
>> Note that all architectures are not listed for each package: I took
>> archs where at least one binary package exists (or all if one
>> arch-independant binary package exists).
>>
> arch-independant packages are not rebuilt by binary NMUs, so you should
> ignore thos
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 15:26:28 +0100, Stephane Glondu wrote:
> Note that all architectures are not listed for each package: I took
> archs where at least one binary package exists (or all if one
> arch-independant binary package exists).
>
arch-independant packages are not rebuilt by binary
Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
[...] The only "little"
remark i have: can you "sort" the arch for every line. It is better to
have always the same list of arches. It helps to spot the difference.
Done.
Note that all architectures are not listed for each package: I took
archs where at least one bin
On 15-02-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --5vNYLRcllDrimb99
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:39PM +0100, St=E9phane Glondu wrote:
>> Ok, I took it into
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 13:02:44 +0100, Stephane Glondu wrote:
> BTW, is there a way to get pending binNMUs?
>
Most scheduled binNMUs are listed at
http://ftp-master.debian.org/~vorlon/transition-binnmus.txt.
However, now other people are able to schedule them, there's also
http://ftp-master.debia
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 01:02:44PM +0100, Stephane Glondu wrote:
> Anyway, the build would probably be done with ocaml 3.10.1 (I am
> assuming that packages are always built in unstable), so would
> probably yield the "same" binary package, am I right?
It depends whether the +b1 binNMU has been
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
The only doubt I've is: you put dep-wait on +b1, in doing so you're
assuming that +b1 is the result of the binNMU *we* are requesting,
right? [...]
Right.
[...] So, in theory, this can screw up if some other binNMU has been
made for other reasons in the involved
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 10:41:39PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Ok, I took it into account.
Wonderful, thanks.
> The new (and hopefully definitive) request is at:
> http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/binNMU.txt
It looks sane to me.
The only doubt I've is: you put dep-wait on +b1, in
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> What about screen scraping our status page? Alternatively, if you
> prefer, I can put on line side by side to it a more machine
> interpretable version of it (plain text, record oriented, tab-separated
> or something such). What about it?
Ok, I took it into account.
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:16:42PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> I've written a script gen-binNMU-request.py (see svn) to generate these
> lines from:
> http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/build_order.txt
Thanks for this. Please note that now that file is up to date, so I
think it can be
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Very well, so where can I update this file with my packages then ;-)
Nope, that file can be generated automatically, and in fact it is, by
the following crontab line of mine executed on alioth.d.o:
05 00 * * * (cd $HOME/bu
Le Monday 11 February 2008 16:48:50 Stephane Glondu, vous avez écrit :
> Romain Beauxis a écrit :
> > I do not see some of my ocaml-* packages in the list. How can I do to
> > include them in the workflow ?
>
> As I said, I took:
> http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/build_order.txt
>
> I g
Romain Beauxis a écrit :
I do not see some of my ocaml-* packages in the list. How can I do to include
them in the workflow ?
As I said, I took:
http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/build_order.txt
I gave the binNMU.txt as examples to see if there is something obviously
wrong. The scrip
Julien Cristau a écrit :
lablgl_1.03-1, Rebuild with ocaml 3.10.1, 1, alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386
ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
lablgtk2_2.10.0-4, Rebuild with ocaml 3.10.1, 1, alpha amd64 arm armel hppa
i386 ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
lablgtk2 dep-wait lablgl (>= 1
Le Monday 11 February 2008 16:00:42 Julien Cristau, vous avez écrit :
> Thanks for working on that, Stéphane!
Thanks !
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 23:20:06 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> > lablgl_1.03-1, Rebuild with ocaml 3.10.1, 1, alpha amd64 arm armel hppa
> > i386 ia64 m68k mips mipse
Thanks for working on that, Stéphane!
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 23:20:06 +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> lablgl_1.03-1, Rebuild with ocaml 3.10.1, 1, alpha amd64 arm armel hppa i386
> ia64 m68k mips mipsel powerpc s390 sparc
> lablgtk2_2.10.0-4, Rebuild with ocaml 3.10.1, 1, alpha amd64 arm armel
The debian-ocaml-status page seems not to be picking up the latest
versions in unstable -- both ocaml-sha and syslog-ocaml have more
recent versions in unstable (still built againsst 3.10.0), so they
should be green, not blue.
Also, I notice that approx isn't in the list of packages with
build-tim
Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
> [...] removing the others from build_order.txt
> gives the file attached to this mail.
Oops... I forgot the attachment.
--
Stéphane
binNMU.txt
Description: application/pgp-keys
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> [...] Better would be to write a script which
> parses the information we already have about OCaml-related packages and
> generate the needed lines to be inlined in the email.
I've written a script gen-binNMU-request.py (see svn) to generate these
lines from:
http:
I've manually uploaded some packages of mine which are quite down in the
re-building hierarchy, since they needed sourceful uploads for various
reasons (mainly newer upstream releases).
For all the remaining packages I suggest to ask for a batch of binNMUs.
Please say something if some packages o
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:01:11PM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Are there
> > any dependencies other than ocaml-nox-3.09.1, ocaml-base-3.09.1, and
> > ocaml-base-nox-3.09.1 that necessitate rebuilds?
> I guess there is also ocaml-3.09.1, which is provided by ocaml.
> I don't know if there are
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 16:43:02 +, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:05:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > I've put together a list of packages which should be rebuilt against
> > ocaml 3.09.2, and which are, to the best of my knowledge, binNMU-safe.
>
> Are there any
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 12:38:49AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:31:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:13:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:01:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:31:14AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:13:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:01:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > > Anyway, the script I'm using
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 11:13:19PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:01:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Anyway, the script I'm using for this is smart enough that it won't pick
> > > up
> > > any false
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 08:01:54AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Anyway, the script I'm using for this is smart enough that it won't pick up
> > any false-positives for packages you've already uploaded, because it knows
> > not to tr
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 06:16:28PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Anyway, the script I'm using for this is smart enough that it won't pick up
> any false-positives for packages you've already uploaded, because it knows
> not to try to binNMU packages that are sourcefully out-of-date on an
> archite
, I'm going ahead with the binNMUs because I believe my understanding of
the situation is correct, but let me clarify what I'm doing so people at
least understand.
The ocaml transition requires rebuilds for a number of packages,
specifically, those that depend on 3.09.1 packages that no lo
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Are there any packages which depend on ocaml-base-nox-3.09.1,
> ocaml-base-3.09.1, or ocaml-nox-3.09.1 that are not in this list?
Yes, but (assuming Julien's report is correct, not that I doubt, but I
haven't checked it by myself) t
On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 12:12:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:20:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:05:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > > any dependencies other th
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 11:20:22AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:05:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > any dependencies other than ocaml-nox-3.09.1, ocaml-base-3.09.1, and
> > ocaml-base-nox-3.09.1 that
On Sun, May 28, 2006 at 04:43:02PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:05:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
>
> > I've put together a list of packages which should be rebuilt against
> > ocaml 3.09.2, and which are, to the best of my knowledge, binNMU-safe.
>
> Are there any
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 03:05:48AM +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> I've put together a list of packages which should be rebuilt against
> ocaml 3.09.2, and which are, to the best of my knowledge, binNMU-safe.
Are there any packages which depend on ocaml-base-nox-3.09.1,
ocaml-base-3.09.1, or ocaml
Hi,
I've put together a list of packages which should be rebuilt against
ocaml 3.09.2, and which are, to the best of my knowledge, binNMU-safe.
First, packages which need to be rebuilt on all architectures.
In some cases, dep-waits should be set, so I've put them next to the
package (either becau
77 matches
Mail list logo
