Re: please take a look at an ocaml-related apt bug (171542)
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2003 at 02:23:39AM +0000, Faheem Mitha wrote:
> > Dear People,
> >
> > On Dec 3rd 2002 I filed a bug (Debian bug 171542) for a build
> > dependency problem involving advi and ocaml against apt. I'm not sure
> > whether this really is an apt bug or an ocaml bug. I was wondering if
> > someone could take a look at this and perhaps shed some light on it. I
> > don't know what is going on here, but clearly something a little
> > peculiar. Thanks.
> >
> > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=171542
>
> Err, i did look at the bug report, but it was not clear what version you
> where trying to build. You say the latest version from unstable, but it
> is not clear if it is the new 1.4.0-3, or an older version like one of
> the post 1.2.0-date cvs snapshots.
It is a 1.2 version. I don't think Debian had 1.4 at that time (Dec 3rd),
and as you can see I am trying to build from Debian sources. Also, the
very first post in that thread has
Chrestomanci:/usr/local/src/advi/advi-1.2.0#
I'm sorry, I'm not sure about the exact version, but I doubt it matters.
> Anyway, notice that the new version build depends on the exact same
> version of ocaml that you are using, and so it is not (easily) possible
> to build ocaml 1.4.0-3 with the 3.04-12 version of ocaml in testing, you
> would have to modify the debian/control file for it, because we don't
> depend on ocaml anymore, but on ocaml-3.06 (for ocaml versions prior to
> 3.06-13), or ocaml-3.06-1 (for ocaml versions since 3.06-13), which both
> provide ocamltk.
>
> The best solution to this is to use Stefano's woody backport of the
> ocaml 3.06 packages, or simply wait the two weeks needed for ocaml
> 3.06-15 to enter testing, if no new glibc bug appears in the meantime.
I don't care (any longer) about building advi (or ocaml). I already have
advi 1.4 built for sarge, which you helped me with, remember?
At this point I am just interested in tracking down the source of this
bug, and I wondered if you could help me determine whether the apt
behaviour shown in the report was an apt bug or could be explained as some
advi/ocaml issue. Please spare a few minutes to skim through the whole
thread. There is some discussion. Thanks.
Faheem.
Reply to: