Re: [buildd-tools-devel] new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

2011-03-29 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 06:58:36PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
 I hope what you're telling me is true, because it will save  me a lot of
 work! :)
 
 What I don't understand about your explanation: once the new all+i386 .debs
 hit unstable, won't the buildds see the new 'all' package in unstable and
 thus want to install it in preference to the old 'any' package even after it
 is removed from the Packages file? The 'all' package will still be
 uninstallable since it depends on the missing 'any' packages.
 
 While I can fix the problem at hand by removing the mlton 'all' package for
 an upload,  I see a more troublesome problem on the horizon:
 
 The basis, runtime, and compiler packages should all be at the same version
 to compile correctly. The basis package is an 'all' package which includes
 the cross-platform bits of the runtime library. The runtime and compiler are
 'any' packages with compiled object code.
 
 If the Build-Depends lists 'mlton-compiler' (ie: after I resolve the current
 problem), any future uploads will see that it has these versions available:
 mlton-compiler (= old-version) depends on runtime
 mlton-runtime (= old-version) depends on basis
 mlton-basis (= new version)
 ... which I believe means that the old-version mlton-compiler package will
 be uninstallable since the old-version of the basis in unstable is hidden by
 the new-version.
 
 Have I understood this problem correctly?

Does mlton-basis depend on mlton-runtime or mlton-compiler to build?

If the answer is yes, then most likely these should not be three seperate
source packages.

If no, then why doesn't it just work or is the problem a previous version
causing a mess?

I hate circular build dependancies. :)

-- 
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110329171048.ga...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca



Re: [buildd-tools-devel] new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

2011-03-29 Thread Wesley W. Terpstra
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Lennart Sorensen 
lsore...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:

 Does mlton-basis depend on mlton-runtime or mlton-compiler to build?

If the answer is yes, then most likely these should not be three seperate

source packages.


It's all one source package. I split it up the binaries because:
1) about 60% of the package could be in an 'all' package.
2) the runtime components for different architectures can be installed
side-by-side... thus enabling cross-compilation.

If no, then why doesn't it just work or is the problem a previous version
 causing a mess?


According to Kurt, there is no problem. It's all in my head. :)


Re: [buildd-tools-devel] new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

2011-03-29 Thread Lennart Sorensen
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:59:12PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote:
 It's all one source package. I split it up the binaries because:
 1) about 60% of the package could be in an 'all' package.
 2) the runtime components for different architectures can be installed
 side-by-side... thus enabling cross-compilation.

Oh OK, so there is no build dependancy issue at all then (since no one
would be dumb enough to make a package that build depends on one of its
own binaries, would they?).

 According to Kurt, there is no problem. It's all in my head. :)

Oh good.

-- 
Len Sorensen


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20110329190808.gb...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca



Re: [buildd-tools-devel] new buildd dependency resolution breaks self depends?

2011-03-29 Thread Peter Samuelson

[Lennart Sorensen]
 Oh OK, so there is no build dependancy issue at all then (since no one
 would be dumb enough to make a package that build depends on one of its
 own binaries, would they?).

You didn't read the beginning of the thread, I guess?  This is a
situation much like gcc, where the compiler is self-hosting.  gcc
avoids the (explicit) self-dependency by being in Build-Essential.
-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110329222820.gg10...@p12n.org