Re: why did the ocaml package not enter woody ?

Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So I'm reduced to guessing: there seem to be a number of packages that > depend on an exact version of ocaml (i.e. >= x.y, < x.y+1). This means > that the bulk of this packages have to enter testing all at once -- > otherwise, the not simultanously-up

Re: why did the ocaml package not enter woody ?

Robert Bihlmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So I'm reduced to guessing: there seem to be a number of packages that > depend on an exact version of ocaml (i.e. >= x.y, < x.y+1). This means > that the bulk of this packages have to enter testing all at once -- > otherwise, the not simultanously-u