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
Reply to: