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

[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