Comment 13 for bug 522358

> As just written on irc, I agree that jocaml doesn't need a FFe (as I'd
> also like to see the ocaml transtion getting done asap).

I would caution here to distinguish between "doesn't need a FFe" and "has been granted an FFe". I can't tell from reading this bug log whether you mean that the jocaml update doesn't include anything that's affected by FF, or that all ocaml-related packages have a blanket exception. I don't think we want to do the latter without knowing what kind of changes are included, or defining some limits on what's ok.