[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Packages becoming uninstallable in jessie?



Hi,

we all know that Haskell packages tend to become uninstallable in
unstable, but until now I thought that britney will ensure that
installable packages in testing stay installable.

We have a jenkins job ensuring this (simply by trying to install all
haskell packages), but today it started failing, for the first time:
https://jenkins.debian.net/job/chroot-installation_jessie_install_haskell/

+ apt-get -y install 'haskell-platform.*' 'libghc-.*'
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have
requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable
distribution that some required packages have not yet been created
or been moved out of Incoming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
 libghc-agda-dev : Depends: libghc-quickcheck-dev-2.7.6-1a837 but it is not installable
                   Depends: libghc-haskell-src-exts-dev-1.14.0.1-597ed but it is not installable
                   Depends: libghc-parallel-dev-3.2.0.4-6b28f but it is not installable
                   Depends: libghc-unordered-containers-dev-0.2.5.0-11c50 but it is not installable
 libghc-leksah-server-dev : Depends: libghc-network-dev-2.4.1.2-040ce but it is not installable
 libghc-mueval-dev : Depends: libghc-hint-dev-0.3.3.6-93d38 but it is not installable
 libghc-mueval-prof : Depends: libghc-hint-prof-0.3.3.6-93d38 but it is not installable

Any idea how this might have happened? Maybe autoremovals? But I don’t
see an autoremoval of, say, hint.

(Or maybe there is a hickup on jenkings.d.n, we’ll know tomorrow.)

Greetings,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: