[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: status update of ocaml 3.06 testing transition.



Hello, 

Ok, a few news about ocaml packaging.

  o Ocaml testing transition.

    - Postgresql is ready to enter testing, it only need mipsel to be
      built.

    - Ocamlnet was uploaded on november 2, it entered unstable
      yesterday, and will thus be ready in 10 days or so, we have to
      wait for it. I hope nobody uploads a package that will delay the
      testing migration until it is done.

  o Ocaml for 3.0r1.

    I have proposed that ocaml 3.04-14, the same as 3.04-13 which did
    get lost but with the dh_ocamlld fix, to replace ocaml 3.04-12 in
    stable. This new version fixes :

    - the /var/lib/ocaml/ld.conf inversion problem (-13)

    - the dh_ocamlld upgrade bug (-14)

    This is nice, since if most people upgrade to this before upgrading
    to a 3.06 package, we have less worry about the ocaml-ldconf issue.

  o Ocaml 3.06 libdir migration

    Ok, as soon as 3.06-11 enters testing, i will go ahead with the
    migration thingy. I will but the resulting version on artificial
    testing hold, and we can rebuild packages. I suppose nothing will
    need to be changed with the libraries packages, only the virtual
    dependency and it needs to be rebuilt.

    I would suggest ocaml-3.06-1 as the virtual version. I think this
    is a good idea for the following points :
    
    - the -1 denotes it is a debian thing, and not an upstream one.

    - the fact that it is a -1 and not a -11. I prefer this since it is
      the next revision of the dependency, and there is no real reason
      for having -11 in it. especially when -12 or later will be
      available. I may be convinced to reconsider this, so if you
      disagree, please argument.

    Once we are satisfied with thie new libdir thingy, we would be ready
    for all future options concerning this, and i will prepare a
    ocaml-snapshot package out of CVS.

 Friendly,

 Sven Luther

    



Reply to: