Re: [Caml-list] binary compatibility of 3.08.3

2005-01-20 Thread Sven Luther 
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 02:53:23PM +0900, Jacques Garrigue wrote:
 From: Sven Luther [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   Binary compatibility as you get it in C is just a hack: you drop some
   consistency checks, and hope that the user is clever enough to not use
   incompatible libraries. Ocaml chooses the safe way. This could be made
   a bit more resilient, particularly for bytecode, but you would still
   have breakages in the bug fix branch.
  
  What would be nice in this light, would be an exact list of the digests, and
  thus the modules, that changed, so we could only rebuild the
  packages that are actually affected. That said, such behavior is a
  major drawback for using ocaml in real projects, i believe.
 
 Not as simple as that. Actually, I tried comparing digests for the
 current stable version and 3.08.2, and here are the differences I get.
 You can of course do it yourself.

Nice. Stefano tried something such to some degree to analyse the 3.08.2
breakage.

 It is not as bad as I would have expected, which explains why you
 could believe that binary compatibility is sometimes kept.

Exactly, and the fact that maybe i had to big expectations for the bug-fix
branches, but well.

 (Actually some work was done in the past to avoid having recompiling
 everything after any small change in the compiler)

Cool.

 tet4-lib find . -name \*.cmi -exec cmp {} /usr/local/lib/ocaml/{} \;
 ./toploop.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./toploop.cmi differ

If i remember right, the toploop is not part of the runtime, and only used by
ocamlmktop, right ? No library should depend on it, so there should be no
major problem.

 ./ocamldoc/odoc_sig.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./ocamldoc/odoc_sig.cmi differ
 ./ocamldoc/odoc_opt.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./ocamldoc/odoc_opt.cmi differ
 ./ocamldoc/odoc_dep.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./ocamldoc/odoc_dep.cmi differ
 ./ocamldoc/odoc_ast.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./ocamldoc/odoc_ast.cmi differ
 ./ocamldoc/odoc.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./ocamldoc/odoc.cmi differ
 ./camlp4/ast2pt.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/ast2pt.cmi differ
 ./camlp4/pa_o.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pa_o.cmi differ
 ./camlp4/pa_o_fast.cmi /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pa_o_fast.cmi differ
 
 tet4-lib find . -name \*.cmx -exec cmp {} /usr/local/lib/ocaml/{} \;
 ./camlp4/pr_dump.cmx /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pr_dump.cmx differ
 ./camlp4/pa_r.cmx /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pa_r.cmx differ
 ./camlp4/pa_o.cmx /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pa_o.cmx differ
 ./camlp4/pa_o_fast.cmx /usr/local/lib/ocaml/./camlp4/pa_o_fast.cmx differ

So ocamldoc and camlp4, the usual culprits. What broke most in 3.08.2 where
the thread module.

 So, any program that extends ocamldoc or accesses the toploop module
 must be recompiled.
 Concerning camlp4, I'm not expert enough to know whether a change in
 the above interfaces has consequences, but you should assume this is
 the case.
 As of this writing, the .cmx's don't seem to have changed much.

Ok.

 Unfortunately, the above is only about changes in the libraries.
 There were also bug fixes in the compiler, which result in slightly
 different .cmi's for some programs using classes.

Ah, but would those not be detected in the above ? Could you elaborate more
about those changes ? 

 For instance, the GObj module in lablgtk. As a result, anything
 depending on lablgtk would have to be recompiled, but you cannot
 deduce it from the above listing.

Yep, but once we know lablgtk needs a rebuild, we can travel the dependency
tree from there, no problem.

Actually one could imagine a little tool checking all the existing source
codes for presence of the affected modules. Reusing some code of ocamldep
maybe ? 

   You can safely assume that every new release breaks binary compatibility.
   (I.e. that some digests in the libraries have changed.)
  
  Yep, understood that now, 3.08.2 came as a big surprise though, as we 
  somehow
  expected no binary compatibility change for a bug fix release.
  
  But now we know about it, and i will enable the full-rebuild process for the
  3.08.3 release, hoping that it will be in time for the debian/sarge release.
 
 The most reasonable thing to do.

Yes, but a huge amount of work in the current state, so if we could avoid it ...

 If some individuals want to take the risk of not recompiling what
 seems to work, this is ok for them, but usually you don't want to do
 this in a distribution.

Bah.

 If you're ready to do the checks by hand, there is yet another option.
 The binary incompatibilities are not platform dependent. So if you
 have a problem with the speed of some platforms, you can just
 recompile everything on a single platform, and mark everything which
 installs modified files as needing a recompilation on all
 platforms. Hopefully, this should be sufficient (at least for binary
 compatibility).

Ah, ok, nice to know.

Friendly,

Sven Luther


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL

Processing of hevea_1.07-5_i386.changes

2005-01-20 Thread Archive Administrator 
hevea_1.07-5_i386.changes uploaded successfully to localhost
along with the files:
  hevea_1.07-5.dsc
  hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
  hevea_1.07-5_all.deb

Greetings,

Your Debian queue daemon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#290174: marked as done (Improper copyright file)

2005-01-20 Thread Debian Bug Tracking System 
Your message dated Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:47:11 -0500
with message-id [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and subject line Bug#290174: fixed in hevea 1.07-5
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere.  Please contact me immediately.)

Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)

--
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Jan 2005 23:21:07 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jan 12 15:21:07 2005
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com [24.24.2.57] 
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CornX-FB-00; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 15:21:07 -0800
Received: from andromeda (syr-24-59-54-124.twcny.rr.com [24.59.54.124])
by ms-smtp-03.nyroc.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id 
j0CNL4P4015204
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:21:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from pryzbyj by andromeda with local (Exim 4.34)
id 1CornT-0001sg-Kg
for [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:21:03 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Justin Pryzby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Debian Bug Tracking System [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Improper copyright file
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.2
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:21:02 -0500
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE 
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 

Package: hevea
Version: 1.07-4
Severity: normal

The copyright file of this package seems to use the *license*, instead
of the copyright holder in the style of Copyright (C) 2005 by Justin
Pryzby.

Please see this thread:

  http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/03/msg02190.html

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (101, 'testing'), (99, 'unstable'), (9, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.10Y
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)

Versions of packages hevea depends on:
ii  gs8.01-5 Transitional package
ii  gs-gpl [gs]   8.01-5 The GPL Ghostscript PostScript int
ii  netpbm2:10.0-8   Graphics conversion tools
ii  ocaml-base-nox [ocaml-base-no 3.08.2-1   Runtime system for ocaml bytecode 
ii  tetex-bin 2.0.2-25   The teTeX binary files

-- no debconf information

---
Received: (at 290174-close) by bugs.debian.org; 20 Jan 2005 20:54:32 +
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 20 12:54:31 2005
Return-path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from newraff.debian.org [208.185.25.31] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CrjK3-00089E-00; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 12:54:31 -0800
Received: from katie by newraff.debian.org with local (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1CrjCx-0007nr-00; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:47:11 -0500
From: Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Katie: $Revision: 1.55 $
Subject: Bug#290174: fixed in hevea 1.07-5
Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: Archive Administrator [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:47:11 -0500
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER 
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level: 

Source: hevea
Source-Version: 1.07-5

We believe that the bug you reported is fixed in the latest version of
hevea, which is due to be installed in the Debian FTP archive:

hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
hevea_1.07-5.dsc
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5.dsc
hevea_1.07-5_all.deb
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5_all.deb



A summary of the changes between this version and the previous one is
attached.

Thank you for reporting the bug, which will now be closed.  If you
have further comments please address them to [EMAIL PROTECTED],
and the maintainer will reopen the bug report if appropriate.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED] (supplier of updated hevea package)

(This message was generated automatically at their request; if you
believe that there is a problem with it please contact the archive
administrators by mailing [EMAIL PROTECTED])

Accepted hevea 1.07-5 (all source)

2005-01-20 Thread Ralf Treinen 
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Format: 1.7
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:03:15 +0100
Source: hevea
Binary: hevea
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.07-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian OCaml Maintainers debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org
Changed-By: Ralf Treinen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Description: 
 hevea  - translates from LaTeX to HTML, info, or text
Closes: 290174
Changes: 
 hevea (1.07-5) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * New licence received from upstream author by email : Clause 6c of
 QPL does not apply, and no choice of venue (patch 05_license)
   * Distinguish licence and copyright in debian/copyright
 (closes: Bug#290174)
   * New uploader Samuel Mimram
   * Short description starts now on a lower case letter, and is now an
 appositive clause
   * Corrected url of upstream web page in long description
Files: 
 e23308cd55f0960df0f3672f467c5040 830 tex optional hevea_1.07-5.dsc
 f1a278f2f5150620f9056cfcd73081c0 17017 tex optional hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
 4b74cf2d779a1c573dc166cb300706b8 300800 tex optional hevea_1.07-5_all.deb

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFB8BZFtzWmSeC6BMERAlLRAJ0dAetOruy/tsEVye9MkL8pDGDqTgCgrLxU
BoNBo2snDbGc8JPT57L79Rg=
=ap1u
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


Accepted:
hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5.diff.gz
hevea_1.07-5.dsc
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5.dsc
hevea_1.07-5_all.deb
  to pool/main/h/hevea/hevea_1.07-5_all.deb




-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Droit de distribuer la doc de coq

2005-01-20 Thread Samuel Mimram 
Bonjour,
La doc de coq (tutoriel, ref man, lib et faq) est packagée depuis un 
certain temps dans Debian mais je me suis aperçu récemment qu'il n'est 
nulle part précisé que nous avons le droit de redistribuer ces fichiers. 
J'imagine que cela ne vous pose pas de problème mais quelque chose de 
plus formel serait souhaitable.
Vous serait-il possible d'ajouter une note à ce sujet sur le site web, 
ou bien mieux, dans les documents eux-mêmes ?
À titre d'exemple, la doc d'ocaml est distribuée sous la licence suivante :

The present documentation is copyright © 2004 Institut National de 
Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA). The Objective Caml 
documentation and user's manual may be reproduced and distributed in 
whole or in part, subject to the following conditions:

* The copyright notice above and this permission notice must be 
preserved complete on all complete or partial copies.
* Any translation or derivative work of the Objective Caml 
documentation and user's manual must be approved by the authors in 
writing before distribution.
* If you distribute the Objective Caml documentation and user's 
manual in part, instructions for obtaining the complete version of this 
manual must be included, and a means for obtaining a complete version 
provided.
* Small portions may be reproduced as illustrations for reviews or 
quotes in other works without this permission notice if proper citation 
is given.

J'imagine que quelque chose de similaire vous conviendrait aussi.
De plus, le package ira dans la section non-free de Debian, sauf si vous 
choisissez une licence libre pour cette doc (la licence ci-dessus ne 
l'est pas).

Je suis désolé de vous ennuyer avec des problèmes si peu intéressants 
mais c'est la règle du jeu...

Cordialement,
Samuel.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

まだ募集してますか？

2005-01-20 Thread 幸 
[EMAIL PROTECTED];%U%lJg=8$7$F$^$9$+!);d$b:#C5$7$F$F%a!%k$7$?$s$G$9$,!!!(B
$B:#G/(B30$B$K$J$k(B8$B:P;y$N%^%^$7$F$^$9!#:#$NC6Fa$HIU$-9g$C$F(B
$BD>$0$K;R6!$G$-$A$c$C$?$+$i$"$^$jM7$s$G$J$+$C$?$s$G$9!#(B
$B:#$^$G;R6!$NLLE]8+$J$$$H$$$1$J$+$C$?$+$i2fK}$7$F$?$s$G$9$,(B
$B$h$&$d$/0l?M$K$J$k;~4V$bA}$($^$7$?!#$b$C$HCK$N?M$HM7$S$?$$$7(B
$B%(%C%A$b$7$?$$$G$9!#$G$-$l$P$"$J$?$H$=$s$J4X78$K$J$j$?$$!#!#!#(B
$B;d$N%;%U%l$K$J$C$F2<$5$$!#0lF|(B10$BK|1_$*EO$7$7$^$9!#$=$NBe$o$j(B
$B;d$H$OHkL)$N4X78$G5o$FM_$7$$$s$G$9!#(B
$B;d$O$"[EMAIL PROTECTED]>$s$G$$$^$9!#LsB+A0$O9,$G$9!#>l=j$O;d$,$=$A$i$K9T$-$^$9!#(B
$BL5NAEPO?$J$N$G$"$J$?$KLBOG$O$+$1$^$;$s!#(B
(B
(B
(B-- 
(BTo UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bwith a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Droit de distribuer la doc de coq

2005-01-20 Thread Christian Perrier 
Quoting Samuel Mimram ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):

 De plus, le package ira dans la section non-free de Debian, sauf si vous 
 choisissez une licence libre pour cette doc (la licence ci-dessus ne 
 l'est pas).


Maybe explaining to the people you're talking to why this licence is
not considered DFSG-compliant would help them. I would maybe help some
people here as well..:-)



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]