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.
