On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 04:47:05PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 04:20:35PM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote: > > I agree about a task force for packages we maintain (co-maintainership), > > but agree less for additional packages that noone use (I mean none > > of the maintainers use them). I we have interest in packages, we > > better maintaine them, don't we? > > Not in my case: I would like to have at least some additional ocaml > software packages, but I'm not willing to take care of the > maintainership of them. > > Stated more precisely: I can produce an initial debian package for the > current available version, but I'm sure that I will able to keep them > update. Anyway I will probably use them if the will be available as a > debian package and this increase the probabilities that it will be kept > up to date. > > The undergoing idea is that an "old" version of an ocaml library debian > packaged is better that no version ... I understand that someone can > disagree with this idea ... probably you, Jerome :)
It would also make us more responsive when one of us is occuped and also provide hint for would-be maintainer to help out. BTW, Stefano, just to test a theory, would it be possible to build libpgsql-ocaml with current testing postgresql ? If yes, maybe you (or i) could build a testing version and upload it to testing-proposed-updates. I built it in a testing pbuilder, and it does ok once you remove the (>7.3) dependency on postgresql. Friendly, Sven Luther
