[cl-debian] How to get rid of a poised version
Hello, Mea culpa. I did a stupid thing with sbcl: in version 1:0.9.6.0-1 I used the following construction: Package: sbcl Depends: sbcl-common (= ${Source-Version}), ${shlibs:Depends} ... Package: sbcl-common Now it turns out that the buildd network cannot build new packages[1]: |The following packages have unmet dependencies: | sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but 1:0.9.6.0-6 is to be | installed Now, after thinking a bit I dropped the Depends, but I cannot force the buildd's to build a new version. I tried: - to force to use a known good version: (1:0.9.6.0-4) Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.1.16), sbcl (= 1:0.9.5.50-1) ... This also failed [2]: |The following packages have unmet dependencies: | sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but it is not going to be || installed -include sbcl-common into the build-depends (1:0.9.6.0-6) Build-Depends: debhelper (>> 4.1.16), sbcl-common, sbcl (>= 1:0.8.16-1) Also [3]: |The following packages have unmet dependencies: | sbcl: Depends: sbcl-common (= 1:0.9.6.0-1) but 1:0.9.6.0-6 is to be | installed So is there anything else I can do? Groetjes, Peter 1: http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=sbcl&ver=1%3A0.9.6.0-6&arch=alpha&stamp=1130914277&file=log&as=raw 2: http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=sbcl&ver=1%3A0.9.6.0-4&arch=alpha&stamp=1130888045&file=log&as=raw 3: http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.php?&pkg=sbcl&ver=1%3A0.9.6.0-6&arch=alpha&stamp=1130914277&file=log&as=raw -- signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org http://www.livejournal.com/users/pvaneynd/ "God, root, what is difference?" Pitr | "God is more forgiving." Dave Aronson|
* Peter Van Eynde:
So is there anything else I can do?
Bootstrap with one of the other supported Lisp implementations? MLton recently solved a similarly problem by manually building the supported architectures outside the buildd network.
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:30:20AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Hello,
Mea culpa. I did a stupid thing with sbcl: in version 1:0.9.6.0-1 I used the following construction: [...] So is there anything else I can do?
Yes, bootstrap it once for each arch manually. This really is something the porters should do, or you can ask DSA to set up the chroots manually for you and build it yourself. I've done this myself when -2 was uploaded for amd64, and it perfectly build all the others it tried (-3, -6, -7) without problems. Kurt
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 06:35:03PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:30:20AM +0100, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
Hello,
Mea culpa. I did a stupid thing with sbcl: in version 1:0.9.6.0-1 I used the following construction: [...] So is there anything else I can do?
Yes, bootstrap it once for each arch manually. This really is something the porters should do, or you can ask DSA to set up the chroots manually for you and build it yourself.
I've done this myself when -2 was uploaded for amd64, and it perfectly build all the others it tried (-3, -6, -7) without problems.
Actually, -7 failed, because there you seem to have made the build dependency impossible to satisfy with the current version. Which really is an RC bug. Kurt
participants (3)
-
Florian Weimer -
Kurt Roeckx -
Peter Van Eynde