Debian Bug report logs - #807019
unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Toggle useless messages

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

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

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

Subject: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:05:46 +0100

Package: unison2.40.102
Version: 2.40.102-3+b1
Severity: grave
Justification: renders package unusable

unison seems very broken:

$ /usr/bin/unison-2.40.102
�
r°rSegmentation fault (core dumped)

-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.2.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/12 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=POSIX, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 depends on:
ii  libc6  2.21-3

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 recommends:
ii  openssh-client [ssh-client]  1:7.1p1-1

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 suggests:
ii  unison-all  2.48+1

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

To: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 11:12:48 +0100

On 2015-12-04 11:05:46 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Package: unison2.40.102
> Version: 2.40.102-3+b1
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
> 
> unison seems very broken:
> 
> $ /usr/bin/unison-2.40.102
> �
> r°rSegmentation fault (core dumped)

The cause seems to be the recent 2.40.102-3+b1 rebuild.
2.40.102-3 doesn't have any problem.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Message #15 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Leandro Noferini <lnoferin@cybervalley.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <807019@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 07:37:39 +0100

Package: unison2.40.102
Version: 2.40.102-3+b1
Followup-For: Bug #807019

I can confirm this bug report. Trying to run unison-2.40 under gdb I get this
message:

Starting program: /usr/bin/unison-2.40 

r
Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x000000000040ee11 in ?? ()


-- System Information:
Debian Release: stretch/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 4.2.0-1-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=it_IT.utf8, LC_CTYPE=it_IT.utf8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 depends on:
ii  libc6  2.21-3

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 recommends:
ii  openssh-client [ssh-client]  1:7.1p1-1

Versions of packages unison2.40.102 suggests:
ii  unison-all  2.48+1

-- no debconf information

Message #20 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2015 20:15:38 +0900

Dear all,

(please Cc)

is there a way to track down who create a binnmu? Currently unison2.40.102
is broken on sid and segfaults (see bug report in Cc), and that is solely
caused by the binnmu
	2.40.102-3+b1
because several people confirmed that -3 works without problems.

My questions are:
* is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1?
* what would be the proper steps to revert this broken behaviour?

Thanks

Norbert

(please Cc)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #25 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 16:23:02 +0100

Le 06/12/2015 12:15, Norbert Preining a écrit :
> * is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1?

For "who", I don't know. But for "why", cf
/usr/share/doc/unison2.40.102/changelog.Debian.amd64.gz:
> unison2.40.102 (2.40.102-3+b1) sid; urgency=low, binary-only=yes
> 
>   * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for amd64; no source changes.
>   * Rebuild against ncurses 6.0.
> 
>  -- amd64 / i386 Build Daemon (babin) <buildd-babin@buildd.debian.org>  Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:50:21 +0200

...which is strange, because unison doesn't use ncurses AFAICT. Also,
the date is misleading; it corresponds to the last sourceful upload, not
the binNMU.

But I now understand the problem: unison2.40.102 uses Obj.magic (i.e. an
unsafe coercion) to cast a format string into a string. The previous
unison version was compiled with OCaml 4.01.0, where format strings were
indeed strings. The new version was compiled with OCaml 4.02.3, where it
is no longer the case. unison2.32.52 should suffer from the same problem.

The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled with
the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more
when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.

-- 
Stéphane

Message #30 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

Cc: 807019@bugs.debian.org, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 07:52:30 +0900

Dear Stéphane,

> But I now understand the problem: unison2.40.102 uses Obj.magic (i.e. an
> unsafe coercion) to cast a format string into a string. The previous
> unison version was compiled with OCaml 4.01.0, where format strings were
> indeed strings. The new version was compiled with OCaml 4.02.3, where it
> is no longer the case. unison2.32.52 should suffer from the same problem.

Uhh, thanks for tracking this down.

> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.

That would be a pity.

> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it

Unfortunately I am even running old-stable, but till now had no
problems using 2.40 with the unison from old-stable. I will need
to look into that how I can keep that running.

Thanks a lot and all the best

Norbert

------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREINING, Norbert                               http://www.preining.info
JAIST, Japan                                 TeX Live & Debian Developer
GPG: 0x860CDC13   fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0  ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message #33 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>

To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Cc: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2015 14:47:25 +0100

* Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 2015-12-07, 16:23:
>>* is there a way to track down who uploaded -3+b1?
>For "who", I don't know.

BinNMU are usually scheduled by the Release Team.
This package was part of the ncurses transition:
https://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ncurses.html

>But for "why", cf 
>/usr/share/doc/unison2.40.102/changelog.Debian.amd64.gz:
>>unison2.40.102 (2.40.102-3+b1) sid; urgency=low, binary-only=yes
>>
>>  * Binary-only non-maintainer upload for amd64; no source changes.
>>  * Rebuild against ncurses 6.0.
>>
>> -- amd64 / i386 Build Daemon (babin) <buildd-babin@buildd.debian.org>  Fri, 31 Jul 2015 09:50:21 +0200
>
>...which is strange, because unison doesn't use ncurses AFAICT.

Not on amd64, but it does link to ncurses on some other architectures. 
This is probably unintentional. For example, I see this in the mips 
build log[0]:

dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: package could avoid a useless dependency if debian/unison2.32.52/usr/bin/unison-2.32.52 was not linked against libncurses.so.5 (it uses none of the library's symbols)

>Also, the date is misleading; it corresponds to the last sourceful 
>upload, not the binNMU.

Looks like a fallout after #620112.
This change in sbuild should be reverted. It didn't fix binNMU 
co-installability, and made binMNU changelog entries less helpful.


[0] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=unison2.32.52&arch=mips&ver=2.32.52-7%2Bb1&stamp=1449193180

-- 
Jakub Wilk

Message #38 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 00:38:33 +0100

Hi,

On 07/12/2015 16:23, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> 
> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
> incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled with
> the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more
> when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
> 

A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to use 2.48
from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated to testing.

My 2 cents,

-- 
Mehdi

Message #43 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Pat Hooper <wphooper@gmail.com>

To: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: interaction with Ubuntu

Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:55:57 -0500

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

I am running Stretch on most of my computers and use unison to sync between
Debian computers and Ubuntu computers. I get segfaults with unison-2.32.52
and unison-2.40.102, and these are the only packages currently available in
Ubuntu:

http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?suite=all&arch=any&searchon=names&keywords=unison

I guess I'll try to get unison-2.48 by compiling it myself or via a
repository:
http://linuxg.net/install-unison-on-ubuntu/

I just wanted to add to the argument that this bug is serious. Thanks to
all of you who are trying to fix it.

Best,
Pat

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #48 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexandre Rossi <alexandre.rossi@gmail.com>

To: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

Cc: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:06:03 +0100

Hi,

>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
>> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
>> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
>> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
>> incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled with
>> the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more
>> when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
>> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
>>
>
> A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to use 2.48
> from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated to testing.

The backport is indeed a nice way out of this, the rebuild is
straightforward (only tried for amd64).
http://sousmonlit.zincube.net/~niol/apt/pool/main/u/unison/unison_2.48.3-1~bpo80+1.dsc

This should be integrated in the backports.d.o repositories.

Alex

Message #53 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org>

To: Alexandre Rossi <alexandre.rossi@gmail.com>

Cc: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 11:13:59 +0100

On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Alexandre Rossi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> >> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
> >> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
> >> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
> >> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
> >> incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled with
> >> the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more
> >> when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
> >> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
> >>
> >
> > A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to use 2.48
> > from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated to testing.
> 
> The backport is indeed a nice way out of this, the rebuild is
> straightforward (only tried for amd64).
> http://sousmonlit.zincube.net/~niol/apt/pool/main/u/unison/unison_2.48.3-1~bpo80+1.dsc
> 
> This should be integrated in the backports.d.o repositories.
Backports is not for fixing bugs in stable.

Alex - Backports ftpmaster

Message #58 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Alexandre Rossi <alexandre.rossi@gmail.com>, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:11:54 +0100

Hi,

On 29/12/2015 11:13, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, Alexandre Rossi wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>>>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty
>>>> big... I'm not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a
>>>> unison2.40.102 any more. Moreover, this package was created to
>>>> provide compatibility with previous Debian releases, but
>>>> another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it incompatible anyway (both
>>>> communicating unisons need to be compiled with the same version
>>>> of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more when one
>>>> side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO, 
>>>> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to
>>> use 2.48 from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated
>>> to testing.
>> 
>> The backport is indeed a nice way out of this, the rebuild is 
>> straightforward (only tried for amd64). 
>> http://sousmonlit.zincube.net/~niol/apt/pool/main/u/unison/unison_2.48.3-1~bpo80+1.dsc
>>
>>
>> 
This should be integrated in the backports.d.o repositories.
> Backports is not for fixing bugs in stable.
> 

Should the description from backports.d.o be adjusted then? For now, it reads:

  Backports are packages taken from the next Debian release (called "testing"),
  adjusted and recompiled for usage on Debian stable.

Alternatively, can you please explain how this case doesn't fit?

We didn't need to backport Unison in the past because it used to work well
even with different OCaml versions. Now, this changed in 2.48 and we are not
able to offer sync between Stable and Testing machines anymore. In fact, the
"issue" was triggered by the fact that some internal structures changed in
some OCaml modules rendering Unison <2.48 unusable with recent OCaml version.
This is now fixed in Unison 2.48... hence the backport of Unison 2.48. But
there is nothing to fix in Stable...

My only doubt right now (about the backport) is about #805456. It would
be great to hear about the submitter before exposing Unison 2.48 to users
of stable.

Regards,

-- Mehdi

Message #63 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Brian May <bam@debian.org>

To: Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org>, Alexandre Rossi <alexandre.rossi@gmail.com>

Cc: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2016 16:54:40 +1100

Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org> writes:

>> This should be integrated in the backports.d.o repositories.
> Backports is not for fixing bugs in stable.

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

This is not about fixing unison in stable. "unison" 2.40.102-2 in stable
works fine. It is not broken. There is nothing to fix. It works fine
when talking to other stable servers.
 
The package called "unison2.40.102" version 2.40.102-3+b1 in testing and
unstable is broken. This broken package is not in stable. If it can't
get fixed, it probably should get removed.

The most recent "unison" package, version 2.48.3-1 in testing and
unstable is not broken. Unfortunately it is not compatable with the
version in stable.

This is about letting stable users use the latest bleeding each version
so that they can have compatability with unison 2.48 in unstable which
is not broken. Which I believe is inline with what backports is for.
-- 
Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Message #68 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

To: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:24:27 +0100

Le 22/12/2015 00:38, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... I'm
>> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
>> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
>> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
>> incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled with
>> the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any more
>> when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
>> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
>>
> 
> A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to use 2.48
> from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated to testing.

No, 2.48 from backports will be compiled with stable's version of OCaml
(4.01.0) whereas 2.48 from testing will (eventually) be compiled with
testing's version of OCaml (4.02.3), making both versions incompatible.

Personally, what I do when dealing with inter-release synchronization
involves using schroot... I heard of people copying binaries around, and
others recompiling unison locally on one system. I don't know which
solution is the best. The situation sucks.


Cheers,

-- 
Stéphane

Message #73 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>

Cc: 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:59:32 +0100

On 2016-01-04 17:24, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
> Le 22/12/2015 00:38, Mehdi Dogguy a écrit :
>>> The change done in unison 2.48 to overcome this looks pretty big... 
>>> I'm
>>> not sure I'll be able/willing to provide a unison2.40.102 any more.
>>> Moreover, this package was created to provide compatibility with
>>> previous Debian releases, but another change in OCaml 4.02 makes it
>>> incompatible anyway (both communicating unisons need to be compiled 
>>> with
>>> the same version of OCaml in practice, which won't be the case any 
>>> more
>>> when one side is Debian stable, and the other Debian testing). IMHO,
>>> that's a design flaw in Unison that cannot be easily fixed.
>>> 
>> 
>> A possible way out for stable (and old-stable) users could be to use 
>> 2.48
>> from backports, when 2.48 will be packaged and migrated to testing.
> 
> No, 2.48 from backports will be compiled with stable's version of OCaml
> (4.01.0) whereas 2.48 from testing will (eventually) be compiled with
> testing's version of OCaml (4.02.3), making both versions incompatible.
> 

Oh, my understanding was that newer versions of Unison were not bound on
an OCaml version anymore and have had worked a synchronization format 
which
will work well with any OCaml version. Sorry if this is not the case.

> Personally, what I do when dealing with inter-release synchronization
> involves using schroot... I heard of people copying binaries around, 
> and
> others recompiling unison locally on one system. I don't know which
> solution is the best. The situation sucks.
> 

It is possible to backport OCaml 4.02.3 (and lablgtk2 :-/) and use that
from backports to build a compatible version of Unison. I realize this 
is
a lot of work though.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi

Message #78 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent@vinc17.net>

To: Brian May <bam@debian.org>

Cc: Alexander Wirt <formorer@debian.org>, Alexandre Rossi <alexandre.rossi@gmail.com>, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>, Stéphane Glondu <glondu@debian.org>, 807019@bugs.debian.org, Norbert Preining <preining@logic.at>, debian-devel@lists.debian.org, debian-backports@lists.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: tracking bin-num - broken unison due to binnmu upload

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:31:17 +0100

On 2016-01-03 16:54:40 +1100, Brian May wrote:
> The package called "unison2.40.102" version 2.40.102-3+b1 in testing and
> unstable is broken. This broken package is not in stable. If it can't
> get fixed, it probably should get removed.

Yes, I think that it should be removed ASAP. Thus, users of
testing/unstable could still use unison2.40.102 from stable
(hoping there won't be any conflict in the near future) so
that they would be able to sync with stable machines without
requiring a backport of unison 2.48 in stable.

This is what I currently do, but since the broken unison2.40.102
is still in testing/unstable, I had to downgrade then mark it as
frozen in aptitude, so that the stable version is not replaced by
the testing/unstable version.

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

Message #83 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ashley Hooper <ashleyghooper@gmail.com>

To: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 15:31:38 +1300

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

Is it at all feasible to downgrade the installed version of ocaml 4.01.x on
Stretch? I am reliant on Unison 2.32 (due to that being the most recent
version available for another device I use).

I'm only seeing the 4.02 version available in the repos.

$ apt-cache madison ocaml
     ocaml |   4.02.3-5 | http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main
amd64 Packages
     ocaml |   4.02.3-5 | http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main
Sources

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #88 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Ashley Hooper <ashleyghooper@gmail.com>, 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Sat, 9 Jan 2016 09:54:20 +0100

Hello,

On 09/01/2016 03:31, Ashley Hooper wrote:
> Is it at all feasible to downgrade the installed version of ocaml
> 4.01.x on Stretch? I am reliant on Unison 2.32 (due to that being the
> most recent version available for another device I use).
> 
> I'm only seeing the 4.02 version available in the repos.
> 
> $ apt-cache madison ocaml ocaml |   4.02.3-5 |
> http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages ocaml |
> 4.02.3-5 | http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main Sources
> 

Unfortunately, there is no plan to downgrade OCaml's version in Stretch.
If you need a working Unison setup across multiple systems based on different
versions, you may copy needed Unison binary around, for now.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi

Message #93 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Ashley Hooper <ashleyghooper@gmail.com>

To: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

Cc: 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 14:19:43 +1300

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

Thanks Mehdi,
I was able to install the packages from packages.debian.org here:

https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/unison2.32.52/download
https://packages.debian.org/jessie/amd64/unison2.32.52-gtk/download

Then I installed them using dpkg -i and used:

apt-mark hold unison2.32.52
apt-mark hold unison2.32.52-gtk

...to hold those versions so they wouldn't be overwritten by the next apt
upgrade.

It now seems to work fine. Is there any reason the Jessie versions couldn't
be retained in Stretch instead of the broken unison2.32.52 version?



On 9 January 2016 at 21:54, Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On 09/01/2016 03:31, Ashley Hooper wrote:
> > Is it at all feasible to downgrade the installed version of ocaml
> > 4.01.x on Stretch? I am reliant on Unison 2.32 (due to that being the
> > most recent version available for another device I use).
> >
> > I'm only seeing the 4.02 version available in the repos.
> >
> > $ apt-cache madison ocaml ocaml |   4.02.3-5 |
> > http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main amd64 Packages ocaml |
> > 4.02.3-5 | http://ftp.nz.debian.org/debian stretch/main Sources
> >
>
> Unfortunately, there is no plan to downgrade OCaml's version in Stretch.
> If you need a working Unison setup across multiple systems based on
> different
> versions, you may copy needed Unison binary around, for now.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Mehdi
>

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #98 received at 807019@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>

To: Ashley Hooper <ashleyghooper@gmail.com>, 807019@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#807019: unison2.40.102: Segmentation fault

Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:34:29 +0100

Hi,

On 10/01/2016 02:19, Ashley Hooper wrote:
> 
> Is there any reason the Jessie versions couldn't be retained in
> Stretch instead of the broken unison2.32.52 version?
> 

We do not support multiple OCaml versions in the archive. As long
as that holds true, Unison <2.48 won't work with OCaml >=4.02.3.
For now, we've requested the removal of Unison 2.40 and 2.32 from
Stretch and we are looking for a solution to make 2.48 also work
in stable.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi

Message #103 received at 807019-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Debian FTP Masters <ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org>

To: 807019-done@bugs.debian.org,

Cc: unison2.40.102@packages.debian.org, unison2.40.102@packages.qa.debian.org

Subject: Bug#810270: Removed package(s) from unstable

Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:36:38 +0000

Version: 2.40.102-3+rm

Dear submitter,

as the package unison2.40.102 has just been removed from the Debian archive
unstable we hereby close the associated bug reports.  We are sorry
that we couldn't deal with your issue properly.

For details on the removal, please see https://bugs.debian.org/810270

The version of this package that was in Debian prior to this removal
can still be found using http://snapshot.debian.org/.

This message was generated automatically; if you believe that there is
a problem with it please contact the archive administrators by mailing
ftpmaster@ftp-master.debian.org.

Debian distribution maintenance software
pp.
Scott Kitterman (the ftpmaster behind the curtain)

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.