On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 03:17:38PM +0100, Jérôme Marant wrote: > BLINK > [ Please, no more CC on reply, I'm reading the list ]
Come on, just configure either your mailer so it does request not to be CCed, or procmail to eliminate doublons. > BLINK > > > Sven Luther wrote: > > >>Hey! I expressed the same idea for Cameleon and you wanted me to use > >>the byte/native scheme although I said it was not worth it !! > >>Bah :| > >> > >> > > > >I just said that if you want to package native code, it would be best to > >adapt to the new stuff, and if you want to do as usual, then bytecode is > >what you should package. I also remember saying that i cannot force you > > > > You mentioned NMU. Err, i think stefano did ? > >to do the changes. Ans that upstream told you that doing zoggy as native > >code would be the best idea. > > > > Yes, but after all. > > > > > > > > >>>BTW, i was rather busy last week, and had to replace my power supply and > >>>my monitor (i broke one of the pins from the cable :(((), so i could not > >>>upload the new libdir moved ocaml. > >>> > >>>Also, it seems dpkg don't work as advertized on the dependency issue, in > >>>particular during upgrade (it does not check if the virtual > >>>dependdencies are still fullfilled by the new package). I have filled a > >>>bug against dpkg, but was mostly ignored. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>As usual. > >> > >> > > > >Well, if i had time, i would look at dpkg myself (or re-implement dpkg > >in ocaml or prove it in coq and have coq generate the proved ocaml > >source-code). > > > > Reimplement dpkg in Ocaml, do you realize how complex is dpkg ? Well, sure, but it would be a fun project. Also i believe it would be much less complexe in ocaml, would it not ? > >Anyway, maybe we should raise the severity of the bug, after all it > >breaks the install system and can render a user box unusable (as far as > >using ocaml is concerned). Do you know who i have to ask on irc about > >this ? > > > > > > Maybe. ??? Friendly, Sven Luther
