On 0, Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For example, I doubt it would have been hard to port ocamlduce from > 3.10.1 to 3.10.2. For sure the port from 3.10.0 to 3.10.1 is harder, but > Alain (ocamlduce's upstream) has cared about binary compatibility with > OCaml 3.10.0 in the very first place. It is then much likely he is > interested in having binary compatibility with newer OCaml upstream > releases. Helping him out when needed is likely to be a much more > rewarding road than forking 600 binary packages. >
Recently, I've mailed Alain to know how ocamlduce 3.x.y is produced. And it was just like "volonteers to maintain (fork) ocamlduce are neeeeded". He also said : "One day, ocamlduce 3.10.2 will be released ...". So we won't have it soon (AFAICT). Just an idea : As Alain won't add any functionality to ocamlduce in the future, is it crazy to consider a fork ? Concerning JoCaml, it can be helpful to know JoCaml team's plans. > Cheers. > > [1] http://release.debian.org/migration/testing.pl?waiting=ocaml > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what? > [EMAIL PROTECTED],cs.unibo.it,debian.org} -<%>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ > (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the > (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time -- Mehdi Dogguy http://www.pps.jussieu.fr/~dogguy/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
