Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Here is out of on top of my head a list of small things we should do
in _all_ the packages we are going to upload for OCaml 3.11:
Status update: Lenny is released.
This evening I'll collect all the points raised in this thread and
create a page with them on our wiki space.
I suggest to wait just a few days (to check that there are no major
impediments in unstable) and then we can start uploading OCaml 3.11 to
unstable, and shortly thereafter all packages which need source
uploads (I believe there are quite a few of them), to conclude with
the usual round of binNMU/dep-wait.
How does that sound?
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 07:37:23PM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
On 09-02-2009, Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote:
Sylvain Le Gall a écrit :
- Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha.
Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream
Concerning arm: it will be deprecated (IIUC) in favour of armel in
Lenny+n (with n = 1) (which currently hasn't got a native compiler, see
upstream bug #3746).
snip
Anyway, if we can produce a working ocamlopt for arm, we should do it
even if it will be deprecated in Lenny+n (remember n can be a big
number).
Actually, it seems that n=1, according to [1]. Hence, even though I
haven't checked with the release team, my guess is that 'arm' should
not be mentioned any longer in architecture lists. This is way I
haven't added this point to the 3.11 checklist [2].
I have the same perplexities of others about adding back IA64 and
alpha, maybe we can postpone this?
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/02/msg3.html
[2] http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/OCaml311Migration
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Hello Stefano, On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 14:37, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:07:13PM +0100, David MENTRE wrote: - Resurrect modified scripts to have an overview of OCaml packages on Ubuntu. Uh? What does it mean? Please expand ... I once adapted Debian scripts to watch status of OCaml packages on Ubuntu: http://bentobako.org/tmp/ubuntu-only/debian-ocaml-status.html I need to modify them so as to provide a daily up-to-date status (no work for Debian developers here ;-). Well, Debian-side, we have no idea of what does a Debian-synchronization is, and IMO it shouldn't be required. Disclaimer: I'm a simple Ubuntu and Debian user. As far as I know: - There are no Ubuntu developers for OCaml; - Therefore, *all* OCaml packages in Ubuntu are direct import of Debian packages, *unmodified*[1]. Those packages are imported during as synchronization window with Debian sid opened at the beginning of each development period of a new Ubuntu release. For the coming Jaunty release, it was during November and December 2008: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule - As such, Debian developers have a *direct* control of which Ocaml packages are imported in Ubuntu or not, depending on what is available in Debian sid during the synchronization period. Outside those periods, only manual requests can allow sid packages to migrate to Ubuntu. As a direct consequence, if the Debian sid repository is in bad shape (e.g. OCaml major version transition to 3.11) during the Ubuntu synchronization window, the next Ubuntu will be released with very sub-optimal and maybe unusable OCaml. Political note: I do understand that Debian developers don't care about Ubuntu. This is not there distribution and they have enough work to care about in Debian itself. But Ubuntu is widely used, especially on the desktop. *I* think it would be positive for OCaml if Ubuntu OCaml packages would be in good shape. What is required is that people Ubuntu side send patches to our packages, or possibly directly commit to our repository in case they have alioth account (which we have never negated to people interested in working on Debian packages). As I said, I don't think any Ubuntu people are interested in OCaml packages in themselves. I'll try to make an inventory of Ubuntu patches on OCaml Debian packages. Nevertheless, if you want, we can while repackaging have a look at the diffs, but the patch flow should really go the other way around. I understand that. I am not a Debian or Ubuntu developer and I don't want to step in neither of those role. Sincerely yours, d. [1] A few packages are modified, but I think it is more related to other Ubuntu packages (Ubuntu wide changes) than real Ubuntu specific changes on OCaml packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:08:31AM +0100, David MENTRE wrote:
I once adapted Debian scripts to watch status of OCaml packages on Ubuntu:
http://bentobako.org/tmp/ubuntu-only/debian-ocaml-status.html
Yep, I remember that.
I need to modify them so as to provide a daily up-to-date status (no
work for Debian developers here ;-).
Ah OK :-), because the list I was trying to collect was a per-package
TODO list which need to be followed during the uploads needed for
3.11., but thanks anyway for stemming this out.
As far as I know:
- There are no Ubuntu developers for OCaml;
Yep, I remember that, even though you are helping in this respect.
- Therefore, *all* OCaml packages in Ubuntu are direct import of
Debian packages, *unmodified*[1]. Those packages are imported during
as synchronization window with Debian sid opened at the beginning of
each development period of a new Ubuntu release. For the coming
Jaunty release, it was during November and December 2008:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/JauntyReleaseSchedule
Nope that is not true. In the past I remember having found divergences
Ubuntu side made by MOTUs, and sometime even not appropriate changes
that introduced breakages. But that not the point. My point is that in
our work-flow we need to have Ubuntu push changes in our
direction. So, even though you are not a Ubuntu developer, _if_ you
are going to track Ubuntu/Debian changes you have all the ways of
doing that.
Let me suggest one: if you find reasonable changes Ubuntu side which
need to be integrated in Debian, submit a bugreport to the relevant
Debian package, pointing to the Ubuntu change.
- As such, Debian developers have a *direct* control of which Ocaml
packages are imported in Ubuntu or not, depending on what is
available in Debian sid during the synchronization period. Outside
those periods, only manual requests can allow sid packages to
migrate to Ubuntu. As a direct consequence, if the Debian sid
repository is in bad shape (e.g. OCaml major version transition to
3.11) during the Ubuntu synchronization window, the next Ubuntu will
be released with very sub-optimal and maybe unusable OCaml.
This is an interesting aspect. Would you care about letting us know,
via this list, when those synchronization window happen in the future?
Of course we cannot grant good conditions during them, but if it costs
us nothing (or few efforts) it would be interesting to try be in shape
during those windows.
Political note: I do understand that Debian developers don't care
about Ubuntu. This is not there distribution and they have enough
work to care about in Debian itself. But Ubuntu is widely used,
especially on the desktop. *I* think it would be positive for OCaml
if Ubuntu OCaml packages would be in good shape.
Political answer: I disagree with your statement that Debian
developers don't care about Ubuntu. I do care, because I know it is a
way to bring Debian efforts to a wider public; it is the same with all
Debian derivatives, and especially with Ubuntu which is most
widespread derivative. Still, the game should be fair, I'm willing to
do the job Debian-side, but I need collaboration Ubuntu-side, and you
are helping with that.
I'll try to make an inventory of Ubuntu patches on OCaml Debian
packages.
Thanks! Please try, if possible, not to do that one shot, but to find
a work-flow which is sustainable in the future. I doubt it can be
automated, but you can build tools that help you in keeping us up to
date on a regular basis.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
- ADD YOUR OWN HERE Please mention changes which are relatively low
on impact, but can possibly improve things for the future.
For all packages migrated to git:
a) check whether Vcs-* fields point to the right location
b) leave an empty dir in svn, pointing to the new Git location
Rationale for (b): Lenny users will have only the APT sources list of
stable, which most likely mention the SVN URL. We do not want them to
try checking out non-existing repositories, checking out a dir with a
README pointing to the new location is surely be better.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: b) leave an empty dir in svn, pointing to the new Git location Rationale for (b): Lenny users will have only the APT sources list of stable, which most likely mention the SVN URL. We do not want them to try checking out non-existing repositories, checking out a dir with a README pointing to the new location is surely be better. The README should be left in trunk which is mentioned in debian/control. Wsvn will not complain when asking for not existing directories as you can see here: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/ocaml-sha/trunk/ -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدقي http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:26:57PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
b) leave an empty dir in svn, pointing to the new Git location
The README should be left in trunk which is mentioned in debian/control.
Agreed, do we have any suitable README snippet yet?
Wsvn will not complain when asking for not existing directories as
you can see here:
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/ocaml-sha/trunk/
That does not solve the problem, even if there is no error, the user
cannot see anything useful at that link. So it should see a dir
containing a README pointing to where it should look (both for
checkout and for web access).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:26:57PM +0100, Mehdi Dogguy wrote: b) leave an empty dir in svn, pointing to the new Git location The README should be left in trunk which is mentioned in debian/control. Agreed, do we have any suitable README snippet yet? Wsvn will not complain when asking for not existing directories as you can see here: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ocaml-maint/trunk/packages/ocaml-sha/trunk/ That does not solve the problem, even if there is no error, the user cannot see anything useful at that link. So it should see a dir containing a README pointing to where it should look (both for checkout and for web access). I meant it's a problem that wvsn do not complain about that. -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدقي http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy Tel.: (+33).1.44.27.28.38 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On 08-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: - if you are packaging a library, please have it generate ocamldoc API reference documentation in HTML format, and register it with doc-base under the Programming/OCaml section Also check that you distribute at least one .mli/.ml file per .cmi, so that you can generate a documentation with ocamldoc and have a readable interface in the library directory. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Hello, On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: - pretty please consider switching to the OCaml CDBS class, if you don't use it yet. I know there is people which don't like CDBS (and I'm not particularly in love with it either), but it is essential to be able to rely on some common build practices and on toolchain components which factorize behavior out of single package. If you don't want to use CDBS itself, please provide an API in your debian/* files which implements the same of the CDBS class we currently have If we need a particular API (I guess that means make targets in debian/rules?) then there is one canonical place to document these: the debian ocaml policy. That's what it was made for. I do not want to dig into some cdbs documentation to find out what I have to do in order to keep packages in shape when I'm not using cdbs. I am not yet decided about whether I would like to switch to cdbs or not. The problem for me is that I have no idea what all these magic include files are doing. This is of course my fault since I intended since a long time to look into the documentation and never came around to do it (like for other things). It is important to be able to understand what debian/rules actually does. Using debhelper this is easy (probably with a finite number of man dh_*). With cdbs I loose the possibility to easily access hat control when I have to. Peter's talk yesterday at Fosdem didn't help to convice me. I am not saying that cdbs is bad. Adding abstraction where it can reasonably be done is in general a good thing, and I see that it has the potential to improve package quality. I just think that is too early, at least for me. Cheers -Ralf. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 05:00:53PM +0100, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Is this API documented somewhere (besides in ocaml*.mk snippets)?
No, it is not (because I was hoping to have us converge on CDBS). It
might be a good idea to document it, as it would serve also as a
documentation for the CDBS class itself, see #466275 (though note that
the comments in ocaml-vars.mk are quite well detailed). Volunteers?
:-)
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On 08-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: - ADD YOUR OWN HERE Please mention changes which are relatively low on impact, but can possibly improve things for the future. - Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha. Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream As soon as we complete this list, we can put it up on the wiki as a reference for the forthcoming migration. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Hello, On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:10, Sylvain Le Gall gil...@debian.org wrote: On 08-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: - ADD YOUR OWN HERE Please mention changes which are relatively low on impact, but can possibly improve things for the future. - Resurrect modified scripts to have an overview of OCaml packages on Ubuntu. - Synchronize with Ubuntu so as to have a decent OCaml environment (either 3.10 or 3.11) on next Ubuntu release. As far as I know, the next synchronization window with Debian will start at the end of April / beginning of May. Yours, d. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 02:07:13PM +0100, David MENTRE wrote:
- Resurrect modified scripts to have an overview of OCaml packages on Ubuntu.
Uh? What does it mean? Please expand ...
- Synchronize with Ubuntu so as to have a decent OCaml environment
(either 3.10 or 3.11) on next Ubuntu release. As far as I know, the
next synchronization window with Debian will start at the end of
April / beginning of May.
Well, Debian-side, we have no idea of what does a
Debian-synchronization is, and IMO it shouldn't be required. What is
required is that people Ubuntu side send patches to our packages, or
possibly directly commit to our repository in case they have alioth
account (which we have never negated to people interested in working
on Debian packages).
Nevertheless, if you want, we can while repackaging have a look at the
diffs, but the patch flow should really go the other way around.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Sylvain Le Gall a écrit : - Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha. Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream Concerning arm: it will be deprecated (IIUC) in favour of armel in Lenny+n (with n = 1) (which currently hasn't got a native compiler, see upstream bug #3746). Concerning ia64 and alpha: compiling the compiler itself might be possible, but debugging FTBFSs afterwards might be tricky... and restricted to people willing to debug this and having access to such architectures (I don't). Are there such people? 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: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
On 09-02-2009, Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote: Sylvain Le Gall a écrit : - Reintegrate missing native arch: at least ARM, maybe IA64 and alpha. Some bugs for this arches has been fixed upstream Concerning arm: it will be deprecated (IIUC) in favour of armel in Lenny+n (with n = 1) (which currently hasn't got a native compiler, see upstream bug #3746). Maybe Xavier has plan to enable it also on armel (I think Xavier Leroy is interested in arm support for ocaml -- especially the one coming with NSLU2). Anyway, if we can produce a working ocamlopt for arm, we should do it even if it will be deprecated in Lenny+n (remember n can be a big number). Concerning ia64 and alpha: compiling the compiler itself might be possible, but debugging FTBFSs afterwards might be tricky... and restricted to people willing to debug this and having access to such architectures (I don't). Are there such people? I think we have 2 or 3 identified issues concerning this. We should just give it a try, if possible. For accessing such an environment, DD have access to some: gil...@albeniz:~$ uname -a Linux albeniz 2.6.18-6-alpha-generic #1 Fri Dec 12 16:22:32 UTC 2008 alpha GNU/Linux gil...@merkel:~$ uname -a Linux merkel 2.6.28.4-dsa-mckinley #1 SMP Sun Feb 8 12:18:20 UTC 2009 ia64 GNU/Linux I need to check that I can really use this machine, but I think it is ok. Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : - pretty please consider switching to the OCaml CDBS class, if you don't use it yet. I know there is people which don't like CDBS (and I'm not particularly in love with it either), but it is essential to be able to rely on some common build practices and on toolchain components which factorize behavior out of single package. If you don't want to use CDBS itself, please provide an API in your debian/* files which implements the same of the CDBS class we currently have Is this API documented somewhere (besides in ocaml*.mk snippets)? - please rely on @OCamlStdlibDir@ substitution variable rather than on /usr/lib/ocaml/@OCamlABI@, as the former will enable us to switch our directory layout more easily if we decide to What about doing this right now? I mean, for the first upload of OCaml 3.11 to unstable. We will have a period of OCaml breakage anyway, so IMHO it's the right time to make the switch. The versioned library dir is not really relevant since we never provide several versions of OCaml 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: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Hello, On 08-02-2009, Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote: --FL5UXtIhxfXey3p5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In doing that transition, I propose to start improving things in each package which will make our life easier for future changes. Here is out of on top of my head a list of small things we should do in _all_ the packages we are going to upload for OCaml 3.11: [...] - if you are packaging a library, please have it generate ocamldoc API reference documentation in HTML format, and register it with doc-base under the Programming/OCaml section Consider the program: /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/ocamldoc-api-ref-config That can help to generate related .doc-base file. - please rely on @OCamlStdlibDir@ substitution variable rather than on /usr/lib/ocaml/@OCamlABI@, as the former will enable us to switch our directory layout more easily if we decide to Also consider using @OCamlDllDir@ for stublibs - ADD YOUR OWN HERE Please mention changes which are relatively low on impact, but can possibly improve things for the future. Will think about adding things here... Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: roadmap to OCaml 3.11 in Lenny+1
Hello, On 08-02-2009, Stéphane Glondu st...@glondu.net wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : - please rely on @OCamlStdlibDir@ substitution variable rather than on /usr/lib/ocaml/@OCamlABI@, as the former will enable us to switch our directory layout more easily if we decide to What about doing this right now? I mean, for the first upload of OCaml 3.11 to unstable. We will have a period of OCaml breakage anyway, so IMHO it's the right time to make the switch. The versioned library dir is not really relevant since we never provide several versions of OCaml I am not sure Zack is wanting to do any switch right now, this is just in case of. I don't see any point doing this kind of switch for now (but maybe in the future...) Regards, Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ocaml-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
