Sven LUTHER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 07:29:47PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 06:24:45PM +0200, Sven LUTHER wrote: >> > logs, but the lack of packages in the archive). As such i think the >> > porters list is the right place, unless there is a buildd admin or >> > something such i can ask ? >> >> IMO is better the porters list. Usually they have a good responsiveness. > > Ok, good news, both the missing sparc and ia64 packages of ocaml > 3.06-6.1 are in the archive. I built the ia64 file myself and uploaded > it, since apparently the ia64 buildd maintainer was not available for > signing, and the sparc problem was due to the sparc buildd box (vore) > having maintenance problem (the powersupply was dead). > > Now, the excuses file says it is a valid candidate, but says so since 2 > days already, so i guess next time the testing script is run, ocaml > 3.06-6.1 will enter testing, and get more general scrutiny. Does anyone > know how often the testing script is run ?
It should, we have to wait a little again. By the way, why 2 days ? I remember to have put the urgency to low... > > I am not sure, but i guess this new migration to testing may cause some > problems to appear as some ocaml related packages in testing may expect > ocaml 3.04 to be there. > > Mmm, thinking of it, maybe the problem about ocaml not entering testing > is due to dependencies problem, but in this case, should the excuses > file not mention them ? I believe it should. -- Rémi Vanicat [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dept-info.labri.u-bordeaux.fr/~vanicat
