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
> 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
If no, then why doesn't it just work or is the problem a previous version
causing a mess?
I hate circular build dependancies.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Archive: 20110329171048.GA343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca" >http://lists.debian.org/20110329171048.GA343@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca