| 1 |
>>>>> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 15:15:42 -0400 |
| 4 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> In general I'd tend to agree, but we're talking about a very |
| 7 |
>> limited pool of 70 packages, |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
49 packages with 58 ebuilds, to be precise. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
>> whose maintainers should always be aware of the issue, and the |
| 12 |
>> number of affected packages should constantly decline. |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> If we were talking about something that wasn't on its way out I'd |
| 15 |
>> be more concerned. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
+1 |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> When will it be out? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
>> From previous ocaml stabilizations, I'd say that I'll have to use |
| 22 |
> --force for at least two months before it can be removed. I might |
| 23 |
> get bored and alias --force :) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Unless the commit rate in dev-lang/ocaml (which was a total of five |
| 26 |
commits during last year) would raise by at least an order of |
| 27 |
magnitude, I'd say that it's not much of a hardship. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
But if you insist, feel free to revert my change to layout.conf until |
| 30 |
newer ocaml is stable. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ulrich |
Archives