On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 05:02:48PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:56:07PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Ok, I have a clearer understanding now. I suddenly like this new > > > implementation technique of our policy :-) > > So, what do we decide on ? Two places where the abi number is hard coded, or > > generating the debian/control dynamically ? > > From what I grasped from this thread I vote for your solution with the > substitution in debian/control (BTW, which are the two places?). Still, > I repeat, I haven't yet had the time to look in detail at your work, so > take my words with some degree of uncertainity.
Well, i was wrong, obviously, there is only one, altough it is of two different kinds. ocaml itself has a hardcoded version number in debian/rules, which you set if the abi changes. the packages get this from ocamlc -version, so the only hardcoded one is the build-depend in debian/control. If we move debian/control to debian/control.in, we can then use the same substitution for a debian/control target in the rules file. Let me adapt lablgl to this scheme and so you can compare. I hear that there is discussin for moving the libraries to the abi scheme also, which would be reather neat. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
