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

Bug#718767: transition: ocaml 4.00.1



Le 05/09/2013 23:18, Julien Cristau a écrit :
> tracker adjusted.  xen-api is currently broken though, so you'll need to
> get that fixed before starting.

I've just fixed a blocking bug (#713349) which was due to the renaming
of an OCaml library (type-conv -> type_conv).

Now, xen-api FTBFS because of what looks like an API change in some (C)
dependency:

> [...]
> + gcc -g -O2 -DCOMPILE_NATIVE -I/usr/lib/ocaml -I/usr/include -I. -c -o xenguest_stubs.o xenguest_stubs.c
> In file included from xenguest_stubs.c:24:0:
> /usr/include/xs.h:1:2: warning: #warning xs.h is deprecated use xenstore.h instead [-Wcpp]
>  #warning xs.h is deprecated use xenstore.h instead
>   ^
> xenguest_stubs.c: In function 'dispatch_suspend':
> xenguest_stubs.c:197:14: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size [-Wpointer-to-int-cast]
>   int domid = (int) arg;
>               ^
> xenguest_stubs.c: In function 'hvm_build_set_params':
> xenguest_stubs.c:360:8: error: 'struct hvm_info_table' has no member named 'acpi_enabled'
>   va_hvm->acpi_enabled = f.acpi;
>         ^
> xenguest_stubs.c: At top level:
> xenguest_stubs.c:470:3: warning: initialization from incompatible pointer type [enabled by default]
>    .postcopy = switch_qemu_logdirty,
>    ^
> [...]

On the other hand, there is a new upstream release (upstream version is
1.6 and unstable version is 1.3.2). It doesn't make sense to me to
invest time in this without updating the package, which goes beyond the
scope of an NMU. Fixing #713349 was already borderline since there is
also a new upstream release there... but it was easy.

The FTBFS bug has been reported in June. I told some of the maintainers
(in-person, in CC) to update this package during debconf. No activity
since them. IMHO, this package is neglected and should be removed from
testing.

There are a few reverse-dependencies, but they all look somehow
connected: nova, guest-templates, xcp-*... My take would be to remove
(from testing) all of them.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane


Reply to: