On Thursday 12 July 2007, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 12:44:33PM +0000, Sylvain Le Gall wrote: > > Do you know why mldonkey, coq... are not there ? > > ( Please expand the "..." above if you know something else is missing. )
The package of `ara' is also missing. I'm not sure if it needs a rebuild against the new OCaml version, if so somebody please find the latest sources at: svn.debian.org/svn/ara/trunk/ > I missed them, but yes, I understand why they are not there. Both > mldonkey and coq build-depends on ocaml-*, but don't have any > relationship between the binary package and some ocaml-* package. > Basically, what the status generation script is telling is that those > packages do not need any transition, and I think it is right: those > packages will continue working even if the ocaml version in the archive > get changes. If I understand you correctly ara falls in this category. > Of course it is not granted that they will be able to build properly > against the new OCaml, so it can be useful to have a way to see in the > status page packages which build-depends on ocaml-* but does not depend > on it. What do you think? Proposals about how to show them? > > > FYI: there is more packages than you think which have been uploaded to > > experimental an rebuild for ocaml 3.10.0 by me, but this has showed me a > > nasty bug in some of my package (ocaml-fileutils, ocaml-benchmark, > > ocamlgsl...) -- will be corrected tonight > > Eh :), you see, the page is useful :-P But I'm getting curious: what the > heck happened to that packages for not being properly reported? > > Cheers. Why don't you use ara to identify/filter all. For example: ara -list "depends:/ocaml/ or build-depends:/ocaml/" -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
