Dear technical committee,
it would be nice if #919951 would be dealt with in time to allow
affected packages to migrate to testing before the freeze.
FWIW it looks like whitedune was now binNMUed, but dune is still blocked
by #919953.
Ansgar writes:
> I am tempted to suggest that this issue is d
Ian Jackson writes:
> Meanwhile there seems to have been no contact with the maintainers of
> the C++ library which is the only hit on Wikipedia for
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dune_(software)
Whitedune also has a Wikipedia entry:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dune
So they are pr
ful if the Debian Technical Committee
agrees with this statement (once it's official). I'm putting them in CC
(via Debian bug #919951).
> @Stéphane Glondu: Renaming the package was offered by Anil Madhavapeddy here:
> https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermail/dune-devel/2019-January/00
On 23 Jan 2019, at 13:03, Jö Fahlke wrote:
>
> Am Mi, 23. Jan 2019, 11:59:12 + schrieb Anil Madhavapeddy:
>> - the consensus on the libdune numeric library thread is that there
>> is no current use of /usr/bin/dune, and it can coexist fine with
>> the OCaml dune package as a result [2]
> [.
Am Mi, 23. Jan 2019, 11:59:12 + schrieb Anil Madhavapeddy:
> - the consensus on the libdune numeric library thread is that there
> is no current use of /usr/bin/dune, and it can coexist fine with
> the OCaml dune package as a result [2]
[...]
> [2]
> https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermai
oid any confusion to users.
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=919951#37
[2] https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermail/dune-devel/2019-January/002427.html
>> If he *doesn't* speak for Debian, then we’d love to be able to
>> directly speak to whoever resolves these matters s
On Tue, 22 Jan 2019 14:45:36 + Anil Madhavapeddy
wrote:
> Dear Debian project leader (CCed), we’ve resolved the rather
> simple technical matter in this thread amicably by directly
> communicating with the upstream software projects involved.
Glad to hear it, that's the way it should be. :)
On 22 Jan 2019, at 11:46, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> Anil Madhavapeddy writes ("Bug#919951: Request about the /usr/bin/dune
> filename"):
>> And just to followup the query about the libdune numeric library, they
>> also appear to have no plans to use /usr/bin/du
Anil Madhavapeddy writes ("Bug#919951: Request about the /usr/bin/dune
filename"):
> And just to followup the query about the libdune numeric library, they
> also appear to have no plans to use /usr/bin/dune. I wasn't copied on
> their mailing list thread with the reply,
Am Mo, 21. Jan 2019, 20:00:18 + schrieb Anil Madhavapeddy:
> And just to followup the query about the libdune numeric library, they
> also appear to have no plans to use /usr/bin/dune. I wasn’t copied on
> their mailing list thread with the reply, but you can see it here:
>
> https://lists.dun
And just to followup the query about the libdune numeric library, they
also appear to have no plans to use /usr/bin/dune. I wasn’t copied on
their mailing list thread with the reply, but you can see it here:
https://lists.dune-project.org/pipermail/dune-devel/2019-January/002422.html
Ansgar Burch
e_dune.
>
> "dune" is very popular as a name, there is also a numerical
> program:
>
> https://www.dune-project.org/
>
> white_dune started as "dune" by Stephen F. White
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/dune/
>
> As i forked it, i changed the name t
Ian Jackson wrote:
> Note that this ocaml tool `dune' was previously known as `jbuilder'.
> It has nothing to do with Java AIUI.
The term ‘jbuilder’ came from the fact that the project originated as
an internal build tool at Jane Street, which was then subsequently
open sourced and adapted by th
]] Stéphane Glondu
Hi,
> Le 20/01/2019 à 23:14, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> > In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread,
> > "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"
> > https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html
> > the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed.
> >
> > The r
Ian Jackson writes:
> Package: tech-ctte
>
> In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread,
> "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html
> the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed.
>
> The rough consensus of the debian-devel thread
Le 20/01/2019 à 23:14, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread,
> "Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html
> the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed.
>
> The rough consensus of the debian-devel threa
Ian Jackson writes:
...
>
> * Declare that no-one is allowed the binary package name
>/usr/bin/dune other than the C++ library dune-common
^
I suspect you meant 'dune' there.
BTW I agree (having followed the thread) that the consensus on
debian-devel was that the choice of
Package: tech-ctte
In #919622 and the associated debian-devel thread,
"Conflict over /usr/bin/dune"
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/01/msg00227.html
the file conflict over /usr/bin/dune was discussed.
The rough consensus of the debian-devel thread was that /usr/bin/dune
ought defini
18 matches
Mail list logo
