{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9/events","html_url":"https://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9","id":136874549,"number":9,"title":"Discussion : should we make a distrib-6-09 to fix compatibility issues with OCAML >=4.02 ?","user":{"login":"GuillaumeBrochu","id":11491888,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/11491888?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu","html_url":"https://github.com/GuillaumeBrochu","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/GuillaumeBrochu/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":19,"created_at":"2016-02-27T03:43:48Z","updated_at":"2016-03-03T06:49:52Z","closed_at":null,"body":"Knowing this bug : https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=815485\r\n\r\nI would like to know if it would be possible to produce a 6.09 release of the \"old\" geneweb, based on release 6.08, with only one main objective : to fix compatibility problems related with OCAML >=4.02 .\r\n\r\nAll the OCAML >=4.02 fixes for version 7.00 are available in this repository:\r\nhttps://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/commit/723fb3f9e685646f326de4b41d4017a9624af7c8\r\nhttps://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/commit/a0d88e917e9204df28f3f67464d1ee012ab6fb49\r\nhttps://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/commit/86b00d3af835b77c1b7416b22abe3a4a84b9caa5\r\nhttps://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/commit/b5d312152755b33cafbdba71f233ec02e7205d0e\r\nbut these commits would probably need a refactoring for version 6 (more than 65 files are involved). \r\n\r\nFixing version 6 is probably a quicker solution compared to wait for the final release of version 7.00.\r\n\r\nThis compilation bug of geneweb in Debian/Ubuntu is \"release critical\" and could lead Debian package maintainers to remove geneweb from Debian testing.\r\n\r\nAny ideas or comments?\r\n\r\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/comments/191613787","html_url":"https://github.com/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9#issuecomment-191613787","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/geneweb/geneweb/issues/9","id":191613787,"user":{"login":"bubulle","id":4094355,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/4094355?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle","html_url":"https://github.com/bubulle","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/bubulle/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-03-03T06:49:52Z","updated_at":"2016-03-03T06:49:52Z","body":"I did this with samba and it turned out to be a very bad idea. No, really, the point is that databases have to be migrated when the software is upgraded. But this has to be done automatically through maintainer scripts. Indeed, there is, IIRC, some very old codes still lying in the maintainer scripts, as we had to do this already once in the past (around 2000, IIRC).\r\n\r\nWhat we *can't* do is just upgrading the software and leave it up to users to migrate their databases."}}