On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:04:40PM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 09:08:04AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 08:19:12PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Unless someone objects to it, I'll package and upload OCaml 3.09.1 as > > > > soon as 3.09.0 is in testing. Do you all agree with a full rebuild? > > > Yes, but let's do it like this : > > > 3) we ask Steve to requeue all those ocaml related packages for a > > > binNMU, > > > and file RC bugs against all those that fail. > > > > I object this way of making ocaml transitions. > > > > Generally speaking a new release of ocaml may imply any kind of changes > > including, for example, source level incompatibility. I don't want my > > packages to be binNMU-ed for making a transition: I want to test them > > and perform a regular sourceful upload. > > I agree with the spirit of this, too, but I noticed a big difficulty > in practice when we went through the 3.09.0 transition. If you depend > on lots of other OCaml components, and each one is going through this > same process of manual inspection, then the total time until you can > rebuild your package is very long (for example, I needed to wait for > all the ocamlnet, equeue, pcre, etc. libs to transition). > > Perhaps we should auto-build everything into experimental first, so > developers would have a consistent, new environment to build against. > Anything that fails to rebuild could cause a high-priority bug email > to the maintainer. Then after Zack's suggested one week period, the > successfully built packages (or manually uploaded ones) could go to
You know though that what you propose is what happens for unstable, and that after 10 days, non-buggyness and consistent build on all RC arches, the packages moves to testing. This sounds suspiciously like what you propose, don't you think so ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
