Debian Bug report logs - #789133
transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 09:50:44 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Package: release.debian.org
Severity: normal
User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
Usertags: transition

Dear Release Managers and OCaml Maintainers,

I would like to start the transition to OCaml 4.02.2 (released
yesterday) as soon as possible. This version has been preceded by a
release candidate, which I used to test-rebuild all the packages. It
breaks some packages; most of them have been fixed in experimental
and/or in git. As usual, it involves a lot of binNMUs; I will take care
of those.

The bug number in the tracker:

  https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ocaml.html

should be updated now.

Attached is the list of packages appearing in the tracker, with an
annotation:
 - "unstable" if the package can be binNMUed
 - "experimental" if the package has to be uploaded from experimental
 - "UNRELEASED" if the package has to be uploaded from git (though I
   am not sure I've pushed everything I should have)
 - "MISSING" if the package has not been built for some reason (FTBFS,
   missing dependency, resource exhaustion)

Out of 256 packages, 41 are MISSING. LLVM packages are probably OK but
take too much disk space for my sandbox. Other notable MISSING packages
include dose3, camlimages and js-of-ocaml but I am confident they are
fixed upstream and just need an update. They also include packages that
are not in testing such as ocamlduce, jocaml or janest-core.

Once the transition has started, and all not-MISSING packages have been
compiled, it should be possible for everyone to fix MISSING ones but for
now, it's delicate because all dependencies have to be recompiled in
order...


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

[status.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #10 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eric Cooper <ecc@cmu.edu>

To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org, Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 11:06:44 -0400

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 09:50:44AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Attached is the list of packages appearing in the tracker, with an
> annotation:
>  - "unstable" if the package can be binNMUed
>  - "experimental" if the package has to be uploaded from experimental
>  - "UNRELEASED" if the package has to be uploaded from git (though I
>    am not sure I've pushed everything I should have)
>  - "MISSING" if the package has not been built for some reason (FTBFS,
>    missing dependency, resource exhaustion)

Is any further information (build logs etc.) available about the
MISSING packages?

--
Eric Cooper             e c c @ c m u . e d u

Message #15 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org

Cc: 789133@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:21:39 +0200

Le 18/06/2015 17:06, Eric Cooper a écrit :
>> Attached is the list of packages appearing in the tracker, with an
>> annotation:
>>  - "unstable" if the package can be binNMUed
>>  - "experimental" if the package has to be uploaded from experimental
>>  - "UNRELEASED" if the package has to be uploaded from git (though I
>>    am not sure I've pushed everything I should have)
>>  - "MISSING" if the package has not been built for some reason (FTBFS,
>>    missing dependency, resource exhaustion)
> 
> Is any further information (build logs etc.) available about the
> MISSING packages?

Build logs and binary packages are available at:

  http://ocaml.debian.net/debian/ocaml-4.02.2%2Brc1/pool/

Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #20 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 12:56:21 +0200

On 18/06/15 09:50, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
> 
> Dear Release Managers and OCaml Maintainers,
> 
> I would like to start the transition to OCaml 4.02.2 (released
> yesterday) as soon as possible. This version has been preceded by a
> release candidate, which I used to test-rebuild all the packages. It
> breaks some packages; most of them have been fixed in experimental
> and/or in git. As usual, it involves a lot of binNMUs; I will take care
> of those.
> 
> The bug number in the tracker:
> 
>   https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ocaml.html
> 
> should be updated now.
> 
> Attached is the list of packages appearing in the tracker, with an
> annotation:
>  - "unstable" if the package can be binNMUed
>  - "experimental" if the package has to be uploaded from experimental
>  - "UNRELEASED" if the package has to be uploaded from git (though I
>    am not sure I've pushed everything I should have)
>  - "MISSING" if the package has not been built for some reason (FTBFS,
>    missing dependency, resource exhaustion)
> 
> Out of 256 packages, 41 are MISSING. LLVM packages are probably OK but
> take too much disk space for my sandbox. Other notable MISSING packages
> include dose3, camlimages and js-of-ocaml but I am confident they are
> fixed upstream and just need an update. They also include packages that
> are not in testing such as ocamlduce, jocaml or janest-core.
> 
> Once the transition has started, and all not-MISSING packages have been
> compiled, it should be possible for everyone to fix MISSING ones but for
> now, it's delicate because all dependencies have to be recompiled in
> order...

I see some of the failing packages have in the log:

 -> Finished parsing the build-deps
Wrong version of OCaml!

That does that mean the package couldn't be built because of the dependency
problems you mention?

My only concern here is that with 41 failing packages, the transition may take
quite a while to finish, blocking other stuff. That'd be different if most of
those packages will just build fine after the binNMUs, but I have no idea if
that's the case...

I do wonder how many of those are actual failures, of those, how many are
maintained by the ocaml team and how many are not...

BTW if you have filed bugs for the failing packages, please make them block this
tracking bug.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #31 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2015 18:02:37 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le 19/06/2015 12:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> I see some of the failing packages have in the log:
> 
>  -> Finished parsing the build-deps
> Wrong version of OCaml!
> 
> That does that mean the package couldn't be built because of the dependency
> problems you mention?

Indeed.

> My only concern here is that with 41 failing packages, the transition may take
> quite a while to finish, blocking other stuff. That'd be different if most of
> those packages will just build fine after the binNMUs, but I have no idea if
> that's the case...

No, it's not the case. However, having an old version of OCaml in
unstable also blocks other stuff: new versions of OCaml-related stuff
start picking up new features of OCaml so we cannot update them before
OCaml. Moreover, sometimes, fixes for failing packages need the new
version of OCaml. That's why I am in favour of removing packages from
testing in order to update OCaml. IMHO, failing packages can be fixed later.

> I do wonder how many of those are actual failures, of those, how many are
> maintained by the ocaml team and how many are not...

I've recompiled everything with the final ocaml 4.02.2, fixing a few
things on the way. The build logs are available at:

  http://ocaml.debian.net/debian/ocaml-4.02.2/

There are 34 MISSING packages. I have attached a summary.

> BTW if you have filed bugs for the failing packages, please make them block this
> tracking bug.

I will.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

[missing.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #36 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:59:58 +0200

On 20/06/15 18:02, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 19/06/2015 12:56, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>> > I see some of the failing packages have in the log:
>> > 
>> >  -> Finished parsing the build-deps
>> > Wrong version of OCaml!
>> > 
>> > That does that mean the package couldn't be built because of the dependency
>> > problems you mention?
> Indeed.
> 
>> > My only concern here is that with 41 failing packages, the transition may take
>> > quite a while to finish, blocking other stuff. That'd be different if most of
>> > those packages will just build fine after the binNMUs, but I have no idea if
>> > that's the case...
> No, it's not the case. However, having an old version of OCaml in
> unstable also blocks other stuff: new versions of OCaml-related stuff
> start picking up new features of OCaml so we cannot update them before
> OCaml. Moreover, sometimes, fixes for failing packages need the new
> version of OCaml. That's why I am in favour of removing packages from
> testing in order to update OCaml. IMHO, failing packages can be fixed later.

Sure, I'm fine with removing a few packages if necessary if those don't have
rdeps, and are not very important (e.g. they have low popcon). The usual stuff.
I'm just asking because I'd like to make sure the transition doesn't block for
too long because there are a bunch of FTBFS that we knew about before the
transition started. So I want to make sure the impact that those will have.

So, I'd like to know what the plan is for those packages that are "missing".
E.g. if those maintained by the ocaml team will be fixed promptly, and what will
happen to the others.

I'd like to see them analyzed and bugs filed (ideally with patches) before we
start this.

Or if you can give a more detailed explanation of what will happen after ocaml
is uploaded, binNMUs are scheduled, and we have ~30 packages that are holding
the transition.

Thanks for bearing with me with my first ocaml transition.

Cheers,
Emilio

>> > I do wonder how many of those are actual failures, of those, how many are
>> > maintained by the ocaml team and how many are not...
> I've recompiled everything with the final ocaml 4.02.2, fixing a few
> things on the way. The build logs are available at:
> 
>   http://ocaml.debian.net/debian/ocaml-4.02.2/
> 
> There are 34 MISSING packages. I have attached a summary.
> 
>> > BTW if you have filed bugs for the failing packages, please make them block this
>> > tracking bug.
> I will.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- Stéphane
> 
> 
> missing.txt
> 
> 
> Not in testing:
>   llvm-toolchain-3.6
>   llvm-toolchain-snapshot
>   ocamlduce
>   janest-core
> 
> Use compiler internals, should be removed from testing if needed:
>   jocaml
>   mingw-ocaml
>   cmigrep
>   otags
>   cduce
>   js-of-ocaml
>   eliom (needs js-of-ocaml)
>   nurpawiki (needs eliom)
> 
> Maintained by the Debian OCaml Team:
>   coq-doc (fix in coq)
>   ocaml-fdkaac (dep issue, libfdk-aac-dev)
>   coccinelle (dep issue, camlp4)
>   lablgtk-extras (Some fatal warnings were triggered)
>   ocaml-reins (Some fatal warnings were triggered)
>   approx (Some fatal warnings were triggered)
>   dose3 (issue in RPM bindings, #789354)
>   ocaml-gettext (segfault, suspicious double linking of Unix)
>   ocamldap
>   matita (a class type should be virtual)
>   ocsigenserver (dep issue)
>   opam
>   why
>   liquidsoap
>   coinst
>   nss-passwords (int types, I am upstream)
> 
> Maintained by others:
>   monotone-viz
>   plplot (configure error)
>   libguestfs (needs ocaml-gettext)
>   virt-top (needs ocaml-gettext)
>   zeroinstall-injector (string/bytes discrepancy)
>   botch (needs dose3)
> 

Message #43 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 19:15:18 +0200

Le 22/06/2015 15:59, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
> Or if you can give a more detailed explanation of what will happen after ocaml
> is uploaded, binNMUs are scheduled, and we have ~30 packages that are holding
> the transition.

I say we remove them from testing. "dak rm -Rn -s testing" shows that
all missing packages + ceve gnudatalanguage nbdkit psfex scamp can be
removed from testing together.

Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #50 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Eric Cooper <ecc@cmu.edu>

To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:45:17 -0400

I've updated approx to version 5.5-2 to fix the build failure due to
deprecation of String.create in 4.02.

Unfortunately I'm unable to upload it, because I haven't been able to
transition to a 4096 bit key yet (no DDs in my area to sign the new one).

So I'd appreciate it if someone could build it from the master branch
of git.debian.org/git/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/approx.git and upload
it.

BTW, I still believe -warn-error is good engineering practice, even
though it's inconvenient during transitions like this.  So rather than
turn it off completely, I turned off only the warning due to
deprecated features.

--
Eric Cooper             e c c @ c m u . e d u

Message #55 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org

Cc: 789133@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 08:00:29 +0200

Le 23/06/2015 23:45, Eric Cooper a écrit :
> I've updated approx to version 5.5-2 to fix the build failure due to
> deprecation of String.create in 4.02.

Thank you.

> So I'd appreciate it if someone could build it from the master branch
> of git.debian.org/git/pkg-ocaml-maint/packages/approx.git and upload
> it.

Done.

> BTW, I still believe -warn-error is good engineering practice, even
> though it's inconvenient during transitions like this.  So rather than
> turn it off completely, I turned off only the warning due to
> deprecated features.

It might be good for development or continuous integration, where
upstream is in charge of fixing things. But for software uploaded to
Debian, I don't think it's the Debian maintainer's job to fix all new
warnings a package may trigger. That's why I think -warn-error
(especially -warn-error A) should not be used in released software.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #60 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.2

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:33:34 +0200

On 22/06/15 19:15, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 22/06/2015 15:59, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>> Or if you can give a more detailed explanation of what will happen after ocaml
>> is uploaded, binNMUs are scheduled, and we have ~30 packages that are holding
>> the transition.
> 
> I say we remove them from testing. "dak rm -Rn -s testing" shows that
> all missing packages + ceve gnudatalanguage nbdkit psfex scamp can be
> removed from testing together.

Tbh I'm not thrilled about removing that many packages, but given most of them
are maintained by the ocaml team, I may be alright with it. It'd be good to
reduce the number as much as possible though.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #69 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 17:45:02 +0200

Now that gcc-5 migrated, can anyone give an ETA for the OCaml transition?


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #74 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 19:21:24 +0200

On 07/09/15 17:45, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Now that gcc-5 migrated, can anyone give an ETA for the OCaml transition?

Has the situation improved wrt the last status update? Can you give an update?

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #79 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2015 10:39:05 +0200

Le 30/09/2015 19:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>> Now that gcc-5 migrated, can anyone give an ETA for the OCaml transition?
> 
> Has the situation improved wrt the last status update? Can you give an update?

plplot has been removed from testing. No other improvements, but I
believe we can proceed with the transition. Blocking packages are few
(only 2 not maintained by Debian OCaml Maintainers, virt-top and
zeroinstall-injector) and I think they can be (temporarily) removed from
testing if needed.

Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #84 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 21:05:08 +0200

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 05/10/15 10:39, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 30/09/2015 19:21, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort a écrit :
>>> Now that gcc-5 migrated, can anyone give an ETA for the OCaml transition?
>>
>> Has the situation improved wrt the last status update? Can you give an update?
> 
> plplot has been removed from testing. No other improvements, but I
> believe we can proceed with the transition. Blocking packages are few
> (only 2 not maintained by Debian OCaml Maintainers, virt-top and
> zeroinstall-injector) and I think they can be (temporarily) removed from
> testing if needed.

Well it looks like #789354 (dose3) has been fixed.

Is ocaml-gettext still buggy? I just checked and there's a new version in the
archive, 0.3.5-2, with a CHANGELOG entry that seems to suggest this is fixed:

v 0.3.5 (Mon, 04 Aug 2014 23:31:41 +0200):
  * Always use format_of_string to not segfault with OCaml 4.02.

If that's the case, then libguestfs (which has rdeps) and virt-top wouldn't need
to be removed.

monotone-viz also seems fixed.

Looks like zeroinstall-injector is the only package not maintained by the ocaml
team which is still buggy.

It'd have been easier if you had told me all that :)

Things look fine, so let's go ahead with this.

BTW please avoid binNMU'ing scilab until it migrates.

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #97 received at 789133-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 789133-done@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Debian Ocaml Maint ML <debian-ocaml-maint@lists.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:19:16 +0100

ocaml just went in after llvm got fixed and removing a few packages

remove nurpawiki/1.2.3-8 eliom/4.0.0-2 cduce/0.6.0-1 otags/4.01.1-1 botch/0.16-2
matita/0.99.1-3 liquidsoap/1.1.1-7
age-days 1 hivex/1.3.13-1
age-days 3 coccinelle/1.0.3.deb-2
age-days 0 llvm-toolchain-3.4/1:3.4.2-16

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #102 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>

To: 789133@bugs.debian.org, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 10:03:40 +0100

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:19:16 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
<pochu@debian.org> wrote:
> ocaml just went in after llvm got fixed and removing a few packages

With the ocaml transition finished in sid+testing, someone should take
care of the ocaml packages in experimental, since these needs binNMUs, too.

Affected source packages, ordered by the dependency levels from the
permanent tracker for sid, not checked further:

menhir (4)
cudf (6)
coq (7)
libaio-ocaml (not in sid)


Andreas

Message #107 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>

To: Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 10:14:10 +0100

On 02/11/15 10:03, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:19:16 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
> <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
>> ocaml just went in after llvm got fixed and removing a few packages
> 
> With the ocaml transition finished in sid+testing, someone should take
> care of the ocaml packages in experimental, since these needs binNMUs, too.
> 
> Affected source packages, ordered by the dependency levels from the
> permanent tracker for sid, not checked further:
> 
> menhir (4)
> cudf (6)
> coq (7)
> libaio-ocaml (not in sid)

Mehdi, can you look at that?

Cheers,
Emilio

Message #112 received at 789133@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort <pochu@debian.org>, Andreas Beckmann <anbe@debian.org>, 789133@bugs.debian.org, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

Subject: Re: Bug#789133: transition: ocaml 4.02.3

Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 00:14:52 +0100

Hi,

On 11/02/2015 10:14 AM, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 02/11/15 10:03, Andreas Beckmann wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 11:19:16 +0100 Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
>> <pochu@debian.org> wrote:
>>> ocaml just went in after llvm got fixed and removing a few packages
>>
>> With the ocaml transition finished in sid+testing, someone should take
>> care of the ocaml packages in experimental, since these needs binNMUs, too.
>>
>> Affected source packages, ordered by the dependency levels from the
>> permanent tracker for sid, not checked further:
>>
>> menhir (4)
>> cudf (6)
>> coq (7)
>> libaio-ocaml (not in sid)
>
> Mehdi, can you look at that?
>

I'll take care of that. Sorry for the late reply.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.