Bug#618757: FTBFS with camlp5 6.02.1
Package: otags
Version: 3.09.3.3-1~11
Severity: serious
Tags: wheezy sid
Hello,
I've just noticed that otags FTBFSes since the recent upgrade of camlp5:
> Configuration summary:
> binaries will be copied to /usr/bin
> libraries will be copied to /usr/lib/ocaml/otags/
> native-code compilation disabled
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/otags-3.09.3'
> debian/rules override_dh_auto_build
> make[1]: Entering directory `/tmp/otags-3.09.3'
> /usr/bin/make depend
> make[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/otags-3.09.3'
> ocamldep line_number.ml > line_number.dep
> ocamldep -pp camlp5o splay.ml > splay.dep
> ocamldep emacs.ml > emacs.dep
> ocamldep vi.ml > vi.dep
> ocamldep otags.ml > otags.dep
> ocamldep editor.ml > editor.dep
> ocamldep -pp "camlp5o q_MLast.cmo" pr.ml > pr.dep
> File "pr.ml", line 66, characters 31-40:
> While expanding quotation "class_expr":
> Parse error: ']' or [expr] expected after '[' (in [expr])
> Preprocessing error on file pr.ml
> make[2]: *** [pr.dep] Error 2
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/otags-3.09.3'
> make[1]: *** [override_dh_auto_build] Error 2
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/otags-3.09.3'
> make: *** [build] Error 2
> dpkg-buildpackage: error: debian/rules build gave error exit status 2
> debuild: fatal error at line 1329:
> dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot -D -us -uc failed
I've (probably) not noticed it before because otags is still
installable (and seems to have no runtime dependency on camlp5).
Cheers,
--
Stéphane
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.utf8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages otags depends on:
ii camlp5 6.02.1-1~2 Pre Processor Pretty Printer for O
ii ocaml-base-nox [ocaml-base-n 3.12.0-1~38 Runtime system for OCaml bytecode
otags recommends no packages.
otags suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
Reply to: