On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 11:53:45AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 06:42:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Mmm, take it easy, it is just a recompile anyway, other (err, me) could > > do it for you if there is need. > > Ok, I plan to do the rebuilding this weekend, though.
Ok, ... Is everyone else ready for rebuilding stuff (mostly libraries) this weekend ? If yes, i will upload a new ocaml tomorrow, anyway, in time for it to reach the archive this weekend and that everyone can do the rebuilding with it. (and changing the virtual dependencies to ocaml-3.06-1 and ocaml-base-3.06-1) If someone has problems with it, tell me (with a list of the packages) and i will do NMU of them. BTW, stefano, are you ready with your .CMI dependency document, so i can add all of it in ocaml 3.06-13, with the other policy changes ? > Regarding the native/byte splitting (hoping that we will reach an > agreement on it) could we use spamoracle as a best packaging practice > for it? Yes, altough the changes are really minimal, as i said in the other mail to jerome. I used spamoracle to test the stuff, tried it on a private repository, like i said i would, with only the spamoracle-byte available or with both of them, then uploaded them. I plan to write a nice entry in the policy document with explanation and other such, though. The only possible issue is if a package has a versioned dependency on one of the apps. This can be solved either by using a virtual-package-providing-the-version, as we are now used to doing, or by fixing dpkg so it knows about virtual versioned dependencies. If i had time, i would do the second, not that i am very happy at the thought of looking at the dpkg code though. Friendly, Sven Luther
