Re: ocaml 3.10.2 transition scheduled for next week
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:48:38AM +0200, Romain Beauxis wrote:
> Le Monday 12 May 2008 16:01:43 Stefano Zacchiroli, vous avez écrit :
> > - ocaml (obviously)
> > * here it should be a good idea to change the doc-base section for the
> > documentation to the correct one: Ralf: can you do that (as you
> > remember which one is correct :))?
> > * Sylvain: can you please commit the policy changes regarding camlp4
> > naming?
>
> * Dependencies between packages:
> I've recently changed some dependencies [1], after talking with the list [2].
>
> Still there are some build failures [3]. In this example, the build
> dependencies are resolved while trying to minimize the packages pulled from
> backports.org.
>
> Hence, ocaml-compiler-libs is pulled from etch, which itself pulls ocaml
> 3.09.2-9 which turns out to be incompatible with the ocaml-nox from
> backports.org, installed as a forced versioned dependency.
Romain, why is ocaml-ompiler-libs pulled from etch, and not from
backport.org ? This seem to be the fundamental problem you are
experiencing, and the fact that this breaks, is probably a feature and
not a bug.
> The same issue happen for experimental.
>
> My opinion on this is that build dependencies for packages using both
> ocaml-nox and other incompatible packages should be versioned for all of
> them, but perhaps it is also possible to add lines in the form of:
> Conflicts: xxx (>>${binary:Version}), xxx (<<${binary:Version})
> in the control file from ocaml source package, where necessary..
Did we not use the ocaml-<version> and co virtual packages for this ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: