Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The idea is then to start doing sourceful uploads Sunday (better
Monday). Uploads should be done with a bit of care respecting build-dep
order and delaying dependent packages by one day (using delayed queues).
As tested with the last transition we will upload only
Le Sunday 18 May 2008 11:20:56 Stéphane Glondu, vous avez écrit :
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The idea is then to start doing sourceful uploads Sunday (better
Monday). Uploads should be done with a bit of care respecting build-dep
order and delaying dependent packages by one day (using
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Sunday 18 May 2008 11:20:56 Stéphane Glondu, vous avez écrit :
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The idea is then to start doing sourceful uploads Sunday (better
Monday). Uploads should be done with a bit of care respecting
Le Sunday 18 May 2008 14:00:03, vous avez écrit :
Romain Beauxis wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/Transition3-10-2
I have a package with a pending bugfix that I would like to update during
the transition, how does this cope with binNMU ?
Does it introduce a binary
Romain Beauxis wrote:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/Transition3-10-2
I have a package with a pending bugfix that I would like to update during the
transition, how does this cope with binNMU ?
Does it introduce a binary incompatibility? If it doesn't, maybe it
would be wiser
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 14:00:03 +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
Things would be far more convenient if it were possible to specify
dep-waits while uploading (as in binNMU requests). In this case,
everyone could upload his package with dep-waits so that it is built
only after all its
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 10:39:04AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
I have a package with a pending bugfix that I would like to update during the
transition, how does this cope with binNMU ?
As, according to your other post, it's a small bug fix please wait for
the transition to be over.
--
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:20:56AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
I've written a wiki page with the process as I see it:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/Transition3-10-2
Thanks for this.
I don't get why you mention that camlp5 will FTBFS with the new OCaml.
It is simply a package
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 11:20:56AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
I've written a wiki page with the process as I see it:
http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/OCamlTaskForce/Transition3-10-2
Thanks for this.
I don't get why you mention that camlp5 will FTBFS with the new
Le Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:18:19 Sven Luther, vous avez écrit :
I have updated the wiki page about backports.org, perhaps we could
enforce this for experimental uploads too ?
I only follow this by far, but had we not some setup which grabbed the
ocaml-version meta package dependency
Le Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:20:22 Sven Luther, vous avez écrit :
Hence, ocaml-compiler-libs is pulled from etch, which itself pulls ocaml
3.09.2-9 which turns out to be incompatible with the ocaml-nox from
backports.org, installed as a forced versioned dependency.
Romain, why is
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 02:39:54PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 11:13:54 Sylvain Le Gall, vous avez écrit :
Maybe others have better idea than I... But i think versionned build
deps, is the best option...
Yes, that's my point too.
But this is relevant for both
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:48:38AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Monday 12 May 2008 16:01:43 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
- ocaml (obviously)
* here it should be a good idea to change the doc-base section for the
documentation to the correct one: Ralf: can you do that (as
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 04:28:07PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:20:22 Sven Luther, vous avez écrit :
Hence, ocaml-compiler-libs is pulled from etch, which itself pulls ocaml
3.09.2-9 which turns out to be incompatible with the ocaml-nox from
backports.org,
Le Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:38:30 Sven Luther, vous avez écrit :
This could be a bug at buildd's side don't you think ?
just depend on ocaml-compiler-libs-API and be done with it ?
Well, yes, surely, but again, it should be fixed in each packages.
In any way, I can version each build-dep when
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 05:03:14PM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
Le Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:38:30 Sven Luther, vous avez écrit :
This could be a bug at buildd's side don't you think ?
just depend on ocaml-compiler-libs-API and be done with it ?
Well, yes, surely, but again, it should be
On 12-05-2008, Romain Beauxis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:48:38 Romain Beauxis, vous avez écrit :
My opinion on this is that build dependencies for packages using both
ocaml-nox and other incompatible packages should be versioned for all of
them
Ok, it's a bit of
Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 11:13:54 Sylvain Le Gall, vous avez écrit :
Maybe others have better idea than I... But i think versionned build
deps, is the best option...
Yes, that's my point too.
But this is relevant for both backports.org and experimental.
I have updated the wiki page about
Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
Stephane: can you please post an update output of the binNMU request
generator script and/or check if the bug of the last transition is now
fixed?
AFAICT, this bug is fixed. I've updated the request online:
http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/binNMU.txt
As per subject, see below [1] for a quoted excerpt from #debian-qa (just
because Luk saw me there I guess).
The idea is then to start doing sourceful uploads Sunday (better
Monday). Uploads should be done with a bit of care respecting build-dep
order and delaying dependent packages by one day
Hi,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Can we please in the meantime make a list of the packages requiring
sourceful uploads?
There is a bugfix version of lablgtk2 which has been uploaded to
experimental. Maybe could we take advantage of the rebuild to switch to
this version?
Cheers,
Samuel.
--
To
Hi,
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 04:01:43PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
The idea is then to start doing sourceful uploads Sunday (better
Monday). Uploads should be done with a bit of care respecting build-dep
Good!
order and delaying dependent packages by one day (using delayed queues).
As
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 05:44:29PM +0200, Samuel Mimram wrote:
There is a bugfix version of lablgtk2 which has been uploaded to
experimental. Maybe could we take advantage of the rebuild to switch to
this version?
Your call, I've no objection in principle (though I hope this version
will not
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 06:25:38PM +0200, Ralf Treinen wrote:
Let's go for Programming/OCaml. The cdbs class seems to have already the
right value. I will have a look at the packaging policy to see what
needs to be done there.
Thanks a lot.
This means that all packaging that install ocaml
On 12-05-2008, Stefano Zacchiroli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As per subject, see below [1] for a quoted excerpt from #debian-qa (just
because Luk saw me there
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 02:57:18PM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
I have already set Programming/OCaml for doc-base section in the
auto ocamldoc generator + template.
Cool.
* Sylvain: can you please commit the policy changes regarding camlp4
naming?
Yep.
Tnx.
I am asking myself,
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 07:15:23PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 02:57:18PM +, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
I am asking myself, if it is not the right time to split CDBS/policy
stuff into ocaml-support package.
I'm against of doing that during the transition. More
Le Monday 12 May 2008 16:01:43 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
- ocaml (obviously)
* here it should be a good idea to change the doc-base section for the
documentation to the correct one: Ralf: can you do that (as you
remember which one is correct :))?
* Sylvain: can you
Le Tuesday 13 May 2008 00:48:38 Romain Beauxis, vous avez écrit :
My opinion on this is that build dependencies for packages using both
ocaml-nox and other incompatible packages should be versioned for all of
them
Humm..
This seems even worse:
leaving recursion
ocaml-findlib: missing
Using
29 matches
Mail list logo
