FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 03-29-2011, 05:10 PM
 
Default new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> I hope what you're telling me is true, because it will save me a lot of
> work!
>
> What I don't understand about your explanation: once the new all+i386 .debs
> hit unstable, won't the buildds see the new 'all' package in unstable and
> thus want to install it in preference to the old 'any' package even after it
> is removed from the Packages file? The 'all' package will still be
> uninstallable since it depends on the missing 'any' packages.
>
> While I can fix the problem at hand by removing the mlton 'all' package for
> an upload, I see a more troublesome problem on the horizon:
>
> The basis, runtime, and compiler packages should all be at the same version
> to compile correctly. The basis package is an 'all' package which includes
> the cross-platform bits of the runtime library. The runtime and compiler are
> 'any' packages with compiled object code.
>
> If the Build-Depends lists 'mlton-compiler' (ie: after I resolve the current
> problem), any future uploads will see that it has these versions available:
> mlton-compiler (= old-version) depends on runtime
> mlton-runtime (= old-version) depends on basis
> mlton-basis (= new version)
> ... which I believe means that the old-version mlton-compiler package will
> be uninstallable since the old-version of the basis in unstable is hidden by
> the new-version.
>
> Have I understood this problem correctly?

Does mlton-basis depend on mlton-runtime or mlton-compiler to build?

If the answer is yes, then most likely these should not be three seperate
source packages.

If no, then why doesn't it just work or is the problem a previous version
causing a mess?

I hate circular build dependancies.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110329171048.GA343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca" >http://lists.debian.org/20110329171048.GA343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
 
Old 03-29-2011, 07:08 PM
 
Default new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:59:12PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
> It's all one source package. I split it up the binaries because:
> 1) about 60% of the package could be in an 'all' package.
> 2) the runtime components for different architectures can be installed
> side-by-side... thus enabling cross-compilation.

Oh OK, so there is no build dependancy issue at all then (since no one
would be dumb enough to make a package that build depends on one of its
own binaries, would they?).

> According to Kurt, there is no problem. It's all in my head.

Oh good.

--
Len Sorensen


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20110329190808.GB343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca" >http://lists.debian.org/20110329190808.GB343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:15 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org