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

Re: libghc-http-conduit-dev has unsatisfiable depends - rebuild required?



Hi,

Am Montag, den 09.06.2014, 20:35 +0100 schrieb Michael Tautschnig:
> While trying to build the pandoc package I ended up with the following problem:
> 
> The following packages have unmet dependencies:
>  libghc-http-conduit-dev : Depends: libghc-http-client-dev-0.2.3.1-0cce6 but it is not installable
>                            Depends: libghc-http-client-conduit-dev-0.2.0.1-8fb9f but it is not installable
>                            Depends: libghc-http-client-tls-dev-0.2.1.1-49c35 but it is not installable
> 
> So this should be RC, but maybe a rebuild by the buildds does the trick here?

thanks for the heads up. 

http-conduit currently does not build:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=haskell-http-conduit
A module has moved from http-client-multipart to http-client, so the fix
is to not depend on the latter any more. 

So I guess I’ll try to patch http-conduit for now...

Sigh, that is incompatible with http-client-0.3, and I don’t want to
patch around old versions. Updating http-conduit to 2.1 pulls in a lot
of other updates, including conduit 1.1, which pulls in even more
(pandoc, wai 3.0...) and breaks others (hOpenPGP, hledger-web). All in
all 48 package changes. I pushed the plan to the conduit-1.1 branch of
our package-plan.

Clint, what do you think about this issue?


Jonas: pandoc will have to be updated for this, but can be updated
already now, so it would be nice to have this out of the way (and there
was another reason I’d like to see pandoc updated, but forgot which
one). Would it be possible for you to upload the latest version of
pandoc soon?

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: