On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > As long as the Packages file for the buildds mentions this arch > all package, no buildd can build it, because it only considers > installing the latest version. But it should get removed > from that file after 24 or 32 hours or something. In which case > we'll only see the old version, can install those, and things should > work from there. >
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?
