Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > Fair enough. You're the maintainer and you have the right to understand > each bit of code. > > So, practically, what do you require from dh_ocaml? You mention globals, > but there are no longer globals in dh_ocaml (assuming you mean global > variables). Do you have an (even approximate) bound for the size of the > script? Do you want me to get rid of the fill_ocaml_depends function?
My criteria are that I have to be happy with the code for it to go into debhelper. I want you to take my feedback into account and where it convinces you to change dh_ocaml, do so. Hopefully the result will be better liked by both of us. > > > I understand how this can be a problem, at least from a philosophical > > > point of view. Still it is not a problem from a practical point of view > > > since invocation of dh_ocaml are idempotent: they do nothing on lib > > > packages and they do act on -dev packages. > > It's a problem if anyone writes dh_ocaml -plibXXX-ocaml in their rules > > file. > > Well, libXXX-ocaml is just a package on which dh_ocaml has nothing to > do. If you like we can add a warning for this case, or, better a warning > for all packages on which dh_ocaml has nothing to do. Ok then the problem is someone who writes dh_ocaml -plibXXX-ocaml-dev in their rules file. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
