On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:27:36AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 07:20:47PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > Also this may cause problems with Stefano's plan for library depends. > > Well, the library dependencies aren't really a problem, there we can > safely fall back on 'standard' versiones build dependencies (e.g. > Build-Depends: libxxx-ocaml-dev (>= 1.2.3), libxxx-ocaml-dev (<< 1.2.4)) > that is ugly but works.
It is ugly, and are you sure you never uploaded a package or maybe just built it forgetting to bump one of the two virtual dependencies. > I proposed the virtual package solution for 'consistency' with the ocaml > package solution. > > Returning to the 'ocaml' package issue, what does we 'risk' falling back > to versioned build dependencies? Can something be broken by this falling > back? Well, the real problem, is i don't have a cristal ball which would enable me to know when we will break compatibility (like the libdir move), nor are we sure there will not be some library or other package which will do the dependency wrong, and thus break all manner of things. Now, the complaint is about build depends only, and we really don't need those. Well at least not as urgently as the true dependencies. The main problem is to stop a library, bytecode package from building with the wrong version of ocaml, and thus be incompatible with all the other ocaml libraries. I have a feeling that this is not really a problem that is best solved as we do it, but more with a so-name like dependency, which would need to be implemented apart from the virtual provides, but which once solved may help on more than just the ocaml packages, and be friendlier to the autobuilders. Now, the real problem is that i did a mistake when i did ocaml 3.06-13 & -14, about the /usr/include directory, which caused some problems when uninstalling the packages, which caused ocaml to be only partially uninstalled, and thus the autobuilder believed ocaml-3.06-1 was already installed while it was not. I got a bug report from James Lamont (from the hppa autobuilder) and after discussion he told me he did fix the problem, well, sort of since i have not seen any hppa build since then. Now, James Troup, which maintain the sparc and arm autobuilders did contact me and told me i should no more use virtual build-depends, and as i wanted some more info, and was a bit too insistent, he decided not to speak to me anymore :(((. So, basically, we are screwed in what concerns the sparc and arm autobuilders, and should best find another solution, or maybe someone else could approach James about the subject, maybe someone who had problems with his packages also, and try to get to the heart of what the problem really is. James was kind of saying that i am uninformed and that the info is somewhere about what really breaks and what not, so i will maybe go hunting for this, and maybe the autobuilder source code to see what exactly went wrong. Anyway, glibc did not yet hit testing, so there is no hurry, altough the glibc bugs are better, the only remaining issue is a licence one with the sun rpc included in libc. Friendly, Sven Luther > Cheers. > > -- > Stefano Zacchiroli - Undergraduate Student of CS @ Uni. Bologna, Italy > [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} - http://www.bononia.it/zack/ > "I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I am not > sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant!" -- G.Romney
