Bug#1073983: transition: ocaml

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Control: tags -1 confirmed

On 25/07/2024 10:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> On 17/07/2024 21:56, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 11:28:04AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>>> On 16/07/2024 13:16, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 10:25:43AM +0200, Stéphane Glondu wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Hi Stéphane,
>>>>
>>>>> Le 27/06/2024 à 11:38, Stéphane Glondu a écrit :
>>>>>> The remaining unknowns are llvm-toolchain-{14,15,16,17,18}... [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> I've done a rebuild of the OCaml universe with yesterday's unstable
>>>>> (mostly). The "missing" packages are the same, but the llvm-toolchain-16
>>>>> build got far enough to FTBFS because of OCaml 5.2.0. This is likely to
>>>>> affect llvm-toolchain-{14,15} as well, but might be fixed in newer versions.
>>>>> I've reported bugs accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [...] Worst case scenario: the OCaml bindings can be disabled (they
>>>>>> don't have reverse dependencies in Debian).
>>>>>
>>>>> I still think this is the best course of action.
>>>>
>>>> looking at [1] this might be the only reasonable course of action for LLVM < 
>>>> 17.
>>>
>>> Disabling them sounds fine (specially for 14 which is no longer in testing
>>> and 15 which we're trying to get rid of), but ideally it can be done ahead
>>> of the start in order to prevent delays with the transition.
>>>
>>> Other than that, I'm happy with the current state and we could go ahead. So
>>> if you can get those bindings disabled, then I think we can go ahead.
>>
>> I tried looking at that, but this "ideally" is in level 15 of the ocaml
>> transition.
>>
>> The bindings are already enabled only on some architectures, uploads to
>> disable them everywhere are trivial while it's a pain to test any changes
>> without the first 14 levels of the transition.
>>
>> It would really be much easier to have the binNMUs scheduled and then
>> fix LLVM.
> 
> If by fixing you mean disabling the ocaml bindings, then I'm not sure why it 
> needs to happen after the binNMUs. If you mean actually fixing the bindings so 
> they work with the new ocaml, then sure, that's fine.
> 
> I see that autopkgtests are being run and some issues are being spotted. I'm 
> starting the gsl transition first, let's do this one after gsl (hopefully it 
> will be straightforward).

That one is done. Let's go ahead with this one.

Cheers,
Emilio