On 5 July 2013 10:24, Colin Watson <cjwat...@debian.org> wrote: > Package: zeroinstall-injector > Version: 2.3-1 > Severity: grave > Justification: uninstallable on most architectures > > zeroinstall-injector now has a number of OCaml dependencies, which are > automatically generated with the appropriate virtual-package ABIs. > However, these ABIs are not guaranteed to be the same across > architectures. Since zeroinstall-injector is Architecture: all, this > means that it is currently uninstallable on any architecture whose OCaml > ABIs don't happen to exactly match the one on which the binary was > built. You can see the effects on installability here: > > http://release.debian.org/transitions/html/ocaml.html > http://people.canonical.com/~ubuntu-archive/transitions/ocaml.html > > (Empirically, I suspect from this output that the ABIs differ based on > whether the architecture is 32- or 64-bit, but I don't think > zeroinstall-injector is entitled to make any particular assumptions > about this.) > > It looks as though zeroinstall-injector needs to be Architecture: any > now.
Thanks. I've uploaded a new version which should fix it. BTW, I was using bytecode because of the instructions here: http://pkg-ocaml-maint.alioth.debian.org/ocaml_packaging_policy.html/x264.html which says: "The bytecode versions are portable. In order to spare the buildds and the Debian archive, bytecode versions should be compiled once for all for big packages (which either take a lot of place on disks or take a lot of time to build)" Looks like this needs to be updated. -- Dr Thomas Leonard http://0install.net/ GPG: 9242 9807 C985 3C07 44A6 8B9A AE07 8280 59A5 3CC1 GPG: DA98 25AE CAD0 8975 7CDA BD8E 0713 3F96 CA74 D8BA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
