Hello Vincenzo, Vincenzo Ciancia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Because you can recompile the same "version" of an ancestor, with a > minor change, and then you need a way to know that you have to rebuild > all your children and so on. Yep. Here are the dependencies of OCaml packages: http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/build_order.txt > In any case this is most likely fixed by a > set of no-change rebuilds. David: do you think so? I'm not sure but that seems to match the binNMU requests made by Debian developers for OCaml packages when the change from a release (e.g. 3.10.0) to another release (e.g. 3.10.2) of the OCaml compiler: http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/binNMU.txt > If this is the case you might be in time for intrepid (and, as an > OCaml developer and ubuntu user, thanks for offering to do this dirty > work). At a first look, Intrepid seems in pretty good shape compared to Debian testing. But I haven't had enough time to compare package by package statuts. For the moment, status of OCaml packages on the Ubuntu side: http://bentobako.org/tmp/ubuntu-only/debian-ocaml-status.html Status of the packages on the Debian side: http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/debian-ocaml-status.html Give me a little time to have a side by side comparison and understand all those complex build naming and machineries. :-) Yours, david -- GPG/PGP key: A3AD7A2A David MENTRE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5996 CC46 4612 9CA4 3562 D7AC 6C67 9E96 A3AD 7A2A -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
