From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975AABB91 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0FC7bMe020587 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:37 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA01825 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:36 +0100 (MET) Received: from yquem.inria.fr (yquem.inria.fr [128.93.8.37]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j0FC7Jwu007917; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:20 +0100 Received: by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix, from userid 18180) id 9B9E6BB91; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:07:19 +0100 From: Xavier Leroy To: Jacques Garrigue , zack@debian.org, caml-list@inria.fr, debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org Subject: Re: [Caml-list] binary compatibility of 3.08.3 Message-ID: <20050115120719.GB11037@yquem.inria.fr> References: <99C2C114-6583-11D9-B72B-000D9345235C@inria.fr> <20050113184137.GA24040@fistandantilus.takhisis.org> <20050113.150239.95895778.garrigue@math.nagoya-u.ac.jp> <20050114133632.GA4923@pegasos> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050114133632.GA4923@pegasos> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 41E90789.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 41E90777.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 binary:01 sven:01 luther:01 bugfix:01 ocaml:01 arches:01 ocaml:01 debian's:01 messes:01 bug:01 binary:01 cheers:01 dedication:98 writes:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: Sven Luther writes: > Notice that this is really not nice for a bugfix release, since this means we > have to rebuild all of the ocaml related packages on all arches, which may > take us month and such. I find this figure surprinsing. Compiling the whole of GODI (which contains roughly the same number of packages as Debian OCaml) doesn't take months, more like one hour. I know Debian has many architectures and many of them are underpowered, but maybe that simply suggests that Debian's dedication to supporting dead architectures is questionable. > Maybe we would be better off just backporting the > non-breaking fixes ? Identifying those fixes would take you and the other Debian maintainers an awful lot of time, and in the end you'd get something that doesn't match any "official" release from us, which is something that I'd rather avoid (it messes up bug reporting, for one thing). > Maybe in future this situation could be somewhat improved ? On the Debian side, perhaps :-) On the Caml side, I don't feel like going out of my way to increase binary compatibility, which has never been one of our design goals. Cheers, - Xavier Leroy